Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.

Lards Amendments considered.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order. )

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bills to be read a second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Wages Councils

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the future of wages councils.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): The policy of successive Governments has been to work towards the replacement of wages councils by voluntary machinery. In furtherance of that policy my right hon. Friend proposes to amend the Wages Council Act and the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act. The detailed amendments are contained in the Sixth and Seventh Schedules to the Industrial Relations Bill.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is welcome news, but in the light of the recent report

of the wages council on the distributive trades, for instance, is my right hon. Friend in the position of being unable substantially either to reject or to amend recommendations of the councils, however inflationary they may be?

Mr. Bryan: The recommendations are referred to the Secretary of State because he must sign the order that comes before the House. He is, therefore, in a position to refer them back if he wishes. I should point out that although it has been the policy of Governments to replace wages councils by voluntary machinery they are still necessary in various areas where that voluntary machinery is not powerful enough to give a fair deal to the people in the industry.

Mr. Loughlin: Does the Minister accept that the distributive trades wages council covers a substantial number of very low-paid people and that wage increases for such people should be granted rather than he objected to?

Mr. Bryan: I will not comment on that, but I would underline what I think the hon. Gentleman is saying, that this is just the sort of industry that needs a wages council for its support.

Labour Costs (Booklet)

Mr. Waddington: asked the Secretary of State for Employment why he intends to proceed with the production of a booklet on labour costs in Great Britain in 1968.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Howell): Because the proposed booklet will present the full results of this important survey in a convenient form, for which there is a clear demand. This is the normal practice with a large-scale statistical inquiry.

Mr. Waddington: Some of us fear that in some Government Departments statistics are amassed merely for the benefit of the statisticians. Will my hon. Friend have some regard for the state of health of a constituent of mine, a manufacturer who is likely to go into a decline if in grappling with the problems of today he is to receive in 1971 a booklet telling him what his labour costs were in 1968?

Mr. Howell: That is a fear of which I am well aware. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituent, but, despite his


difficulties, the plain fact is that this is a useful publication for which there is a very strong demand, and we intend to keep publishing it in the form that we planned.

Mr. Cant: Whilst most hon. Members will welcome the up-dating of the 1964 survey, can we be assured that the labour costs will be put in a world perspective to that the wrong conclusions might not be drawn, and that the work of the Prices and Incomes Board concerning productivity in relation to labour and capital costs will also be carried forward and that some information will be given on this subject?

Mr. Howell: I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's first point. His second point raises a broader issue, which would require another Question.

Bradford and Shipley Area

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of redundancies notified to his Department in the engineering industry in the Bradford/Shipley area during 1970; and what is his estimate of the percentage of these that found local reemployment in the industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Comprehensive figures are not available, but redundancies involving approximately 600 employees in the engineering industry were recorded as due to occur in the Bradford/Shipley area during 1970. I regret that I am not able to estimate the percentage of these who found alternative employment locally in the engineering industry.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that during 1970 2,200 redundancies were declared in the wool textile trade, and that it is to the engineering industry that Bradford looks for greater diversity, future prosperity and, above all, higher earnings?

Mr. Smith: I am sure my hon. Friend is right in linking the engineering industry with Bradford. That is one of the considerations which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will bear in mind when he looks at that area.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the working population in Bradford is currently wholly unemployed, and what percentage is on short-time, respectively; and how the figure for the wholly unemployed compares with the latest national percentage of working population wholly unemployed.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The provisional wholly unemployed percentage rates at 8th February for the Bradford and Shipley travel-to-work area, and for Great Britain, were 3·5 and 3, respectively. During the week commencing 8th February, 1 per cent. of all employees in the Bradford and Shipley area were known to have worked for less than their normal week.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that short-time working is a serious problem in this region, that the National Economic Development Council Report on the Textile Trade forecast the loss of 23,000 jobs in the industry by 1975 and that the area has the lowest industrial earnings of any industrial area in the country? The regions with lower earnings are the rural South-West and East Anglia.

Mr. Smith: These are matters which have to be borne in mind in trying to encourage industry to the area. We are certainly not unsympathetic to the textile industry, which we realise has serious problems.

Mr. Ford: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the percentage of unemployment is not necessarily a precise or finite measurement of the economic prosperity of an area, and that the diversity prospects and structure of industry in the locality must be taken into account?

Mr. Smith: Yes, that is true, and it applies to most areas. It is a bad thing to have too many eggs in one basket.

Industrial Training Boards

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to have completed his departmental review of the operation of industrial training boards; and if he will now make a statement both as to its publication and how he intends the consultative process to operate.

Mr. Adam Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make a definitive statement of his policy on the future of the industrial training boards, in particular the Construction Industry Training Board.

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has now decided to issue interim guidance to industrial training boards pending the outcome of his review.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to have completed his review of industrial training boards.

The Secretary of Slate for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): My answer on 23rd February to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) explained why I now anticipate that it will be some months before a consultative document on my review of industrial training will be published and set out the interim guidance I am giving to industrial training boards.—[Vol. 812, c. 117.]

Mr. Finsberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that during the interim period many of the justified complaints which have been sent to him will continue to be unsatisfied? What steps will he take to make sure that the Distributive Industries Training Board and the Hotel and Catering Training Board bring themselves into line with current thought?

Mr. Carr: The guidance which I shall be giving will go a long way to tackle the greater exemption of small firms in the justifiable complaints, particularly some industries, netting levy payments against grants, more selectivity in priorities of training projects, and so forth.

Mr. Butler: When does my right hon. Friend expect the Construction Industry Training Board to become financially viable and to be able to repay the Government loan, and what increase in percentage levy does he expect to be necessary to bring about viability?

Mr. Carr: The problem of the C.I.T.B. represents in extreme form one of the matters on which I am giving guidance, namely, the need for boards to control the cost of grant schemes, the lack of

which led to trouble in this board. It will be some time, measured in years rather than months, before the board becomes solvent. The money has been lent on strict repayment terms. A representative of Cooper Brothers will continue to advise the board on its financial matters, and regular reports will be made to me.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware how grateful many smaller firms will be to know that attention is being given to their possible exemption from levy?

Mr. Carr: While this must not go too far, in some industries there has been an undue amount of effort and expenditure in relation to the possible return, and I think this could be improved.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not my right hon. Friend's answer to the last supplementary question suggest that it might be wise to make permanent provision in respect of such boards that remain for the right of smaller firms to contract out?

Mr. Carr: This problem ought to remain for my final review. I hope that the guidance I am giving will go some way in the interim period to meet justifiable complaints.

Mr. Rose: Although I recognise that operational details may need to be changed, will the right hon. Gentleman emphasise to the House that he fully supports his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, in a speech at Ayr three days before the General Election, called for a massive increase in industrial training? Will he resist pressure from his less enlightened back-benchers who wish not to alter but to dismantle the boards altogether?

Mr. Carr: I certainly confirm my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's repeated pledge on the need for increasing training facilities. We must take into account here, and my right hon. Friend had this particularly in mind, the need for adult as well as initial training.

Mr. Dell: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to close down any other industrial training boards?

Mr. Carr: That is a hypothetical question. I have no intention so to do at the moment. I simply must look at each board


as it puts forward its proposals and judge it on its merits. The training board system is doing a great deal of good which must not be thrown away, but we should be foolish not to recognise that in some areas it is not being as successful as we hoped it might be. We must keep a questioning mind as to whether methods which are appropriate in some industries are equally appropriate in others.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether his current review of industrial training boards will include a special examination of the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board in so far as it affects the smaller firms of small boat builders.

Mr. Bryan: The review covers the activities of all training boards, and particular attention is being given to the position of small firms. The present levy of the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board is not applied to the first £3,000 of any establishment's payroll, and this effectively exempts about 240 small firms (a fifth of all establishments) from the levy.

Mr. Rost: May I ask the Minister to refer to the Prime Minster, whose interest in small boats for leisure facilities is very much shared by constituents of mine in South-East Derbyshire? Can we be assured that this important industry will be encouraged by allowing more of these small firms to opt out of the levy, which is harming their profitability and expansion?

Mr. Bryan: This point, dealing with small firms, was covered by the statement of my right hon. Friend earlier.

Training Centres

Mr. Hayhoe: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action his department is taking to expand and encourage training opportunities, particularly for the unemployed.

Mr. Bryan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) on 4th November, 1970.—[Vol. 805, c. 383–4.]

Mr. Hayhoe: Does the Minister accept that, while the major task is to strengthen

and widen the employment base in this country, the provision of extra facilities for training for the unemployed, particularly the disabled, is immensely important?

Mr. Bryan: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's statement. I ask him to study the reply to which I referred, which underlines some important new steps that we are taking. For instance, a new scheme of training grants for employers to help workers over 45 who have been unemployed for more than eight weeks came into operation on 1st January in the development and intermediate areas.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that the long-term unemployed, especially miners and men from heavy industries, feel that they will have no work and no future? Will he increase the training facilities for these people so that they can come back again into industry?

Mr. Bryan: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I know his area very well and I realise the requirements in that direction. I can only assure him that my Department is doing all it can. One of our problems is to fill the training facilities we already have.

Jobs

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been lost in England and Wales in the last six months; how many new jobs have been provided; and what estimate has been made of the net gain or loss in the next 12 months.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My Department, as was the case with the last Administration, has no way of supplying a complete record of jobs provided or lost. Employment prospects are dependent upon the prospects for output, and the hon. Member would not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Ministers in the Conservative Administration before 1964 provided certain figures? Why is he so coy in saying that he cannot provide the figures? Are not thousands of jobs being lost—far more than are being provided? These figures are a damning indictment of the lack of clarity in the Government's


regional policies both in England and Wales and in Scotland.

Mr. Smith: No, Sir; I cannot accept that. To calculate the jobs provided and the jobs lost over regular comprehensive employment would mean a far bigger exercise than my Department could undertake without enormous difficulty. Exactly the same problem faced the Labour Administration, and any effort that has been made in that direction in the past has proved to be faulty.

Mr. Hiley: When my hon. Friend looks at this problem, would he consider whether it is merely a case of jobs being transferred from one area to another due to feather-bedding of those industries which have been provided in the development areas?

Mr. Smith: I would not entirely accept that. Certainly everybody recognises the difficulties in the development areas. The great thing to do is to get accurate figures of unemployment and of employment trends. We can work out what are the difficulties and then provide the remedies, as the present Government are doing.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a recent Written Reply from his Department showed that redundancies in Wales since November are averaging around 1,000 a month? Is he not further aware that there is mounting concern in Wales that industrial inquiries are at their lowest for four years and that week by week more and more firms are abandoning investment proposals for Wales?

Mr. Smith: This is one of the reasons why we are giving special attention to Wales. We do not underestimate the problems there.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will arrange a meeting with the Trades Union Congress to discuss methods of reducing unemployment among disabled workers.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Trades Union Congress would normally offer advice on such matters through the workers representatives on the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled. It however, the Congress has

any further suggestions to make, I shall be very glad to consider them.

Mr. Ashley: Would the Minister agree that the present machinery is not functioning properly or is incapable of dealing with the problem, because the present rate of disabled unemployed is running at over 12 per cent.? Would he consider calling a special conference of representatives of the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. to discuss the best means of tackling the problem?

Mr. Smith: The high rate of unemployment among disabled workers is related very much to the high rate of general unemployment, and that has always been the case. My Department is carrying out a fundamental review of the whole working of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act. When that is completed we shall see whether any revision of the present machinery is necessary. In these circumstances, although we are happy to have representations from the T.U.C. or the C.B.I., or anybody else, a conference at this stage would not necessarily be helpful.

Mr. Mudd: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the problem in West Cornwall, where there are high rates of unemployment locally among able-bodied workers, which adds to the problems of unemployed disabled in finding work. Would he consider undertaking a special review of such areas which clearly create social and economic problems and hardship?

Mr. Smith: This is one of the things I want to look at. If the House will release me, I hope in a fortnight's time to go to West Cornwall to see some of these problems for myself.

Mr. Marten: Would the hon. Gentleman consider asking the Civil Service to take more disabled people because that is a suitable occupation for the disabled?

Mr. Smith: I do not know whether I accept the underlying feeling behind that supplementary question. It is not for me to defend the Civil Service.

Mrs. Castle: Why not?

Mr. Smith: Civil servants are quite capable of defending themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I withdraw that


remark. It was intended facetiously and there was no implied criticism. I believe that the Civil Service has a very good record in the employment of disabled workers. I am sure that it is conscious of its responsibility and is setting an example to private industry.

Strikes

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many strikes took place in 1970; how many were official; and how many were unofficial;
(2) how many working days were lost through strikes last year; and what percentage increase this represents on the figures for 1963.

Mr. Bryan: 3,888 industrial stoppages began in 1970, and these included 119 known to have been official. The majority of the remainder would have been unofficial. The number of working days lost was 10,970,000, an increase of 525 per cent. over the corresponding figure for 1963. All these figures are provisional.

Mr. Knox: I accept that the number of days lost last year through strikes is not yet quite as high as in some other countries. Would my hon. Friend not agree that if the current situation continues to deteriorate at the rate of the past seven years, we shall soon be ahead of other countries?

Mr. Bryan: I agree with my hon. Friend's remark that the situation remains serious, and that is one reason why we are introducing the Industrial Relations Bill. As for comparisons with other countries, those are confusing and it is better to compare our own record past and present and try to improve it.

Mr. Harold Walker: Could the hon. Gentleman divide the period into two to show clearly that there has been an increase since the Conservative Party took power and a further increase since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's minibudget last autumn?

Mr. Bryan: I have a mass of figures with me, but without notice I cannot answer that question. However, a look at the figures shows that the most depressing thing about the situation is the acceleration in the number of days lost over the last 10 years.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am now fortified in endurance displayed in walking through the Lobbies 146 times in support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and that I commend him for his righteousness, resting on the figure of 525 per cent. increase in strikes in just seven years?

Mr. Bryan: I am sure that all the hard labour my hon. Friend has gone through will be well repaid.

Mr. Fernyhough: Although the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the fact that 10 million working days were lost last year, does he appreciate that in 1971, because of the stubbornness of the Government, the situation is likely to become much worse? Has he taken into account the 5 million days lost already in the Post Office strike?

Mr. Bryan: Time will tell whether 1971 is worse than 1970, but it certainly will not be due to the stubbornness of the Government.

Retirement Pensioners (Price Indices)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what reports he has received from advisory services on the operation of a separate index of retail prices for retirement pensioners.

Mr. David Howell: The Department publishes regularly in the Gazette quarterly indices for one-person and two-person pensioner households on the recommendation of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee, but the advisory committee has not reported on the operation of these indices.

Mr. Douglas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, according to the latest statistics, there has been a 40 per cent. increase in the cost of living of old-age pensioners from 1962, and the fact that the index as currently constructed excludes housing, which is a rising element in costs for old-age pensioners? Would he consult his advisory committee to get this index adjusted to reflect current increases in the cost of living to this very important section of the community?

Mr. Howell: Of course, I accept that the cost of living has been a serious


matter for retirement pensioners. In regard to the cost of living index, the fact is that the general index, including housing, is not very different from the index for the one- or two-pensioner household. I will bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

Regional Economic Planning Boards

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what organisational association his Department has with regional economic planning boards.

Mr. David Howell: The Department is normally represented on each regional economic planning board by the controller of the Department's services for the area covered by the board.

Mr. Douglas: Am I correct in assuming that the regional controller gives advice about job opportunities in the regions? If that is so, would the Minister say what advice he is giving in Scotland in view of the declining number of job opportunities and the high level of unemployment that is persisting there? Would he clearly indicate what his Department is doing at regional level to increase the number of job opportunities and to reduce the level of unemployment?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman was correct in his first assumption that advice is given on these matters. In regard to the question about the Scottish situation, that is a separate matter on which he may like to put down a Question. Every opportunity is made to use the Department's services to provide the best possible advice on job opportunities in every region.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the North-West Development Association about the gravely deteriorating and disturbing rate of unemployment in the North-West, which in the past year has overtaken both Yorkshire and Humberside and the South-West in the unemployment league? Will he give assurances about and examples of the efforts of the Government to encourage employment prospects in the North-West in general and in Manchester in particular?

Mr. Howell: The Department is well aware of the difficult employment situation

in that area. Every effort is made to apply all the services that the Department offers in this region, as in all others.

Post Office (Dispute)

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a further statement on the industrial dispute in the Post Office.

Mr. R. Carr: On Tuesday and Wednesday I had a series of separate discussions with the U.P.W. and the Post Office. My objective was to have a joint meeting under my chairmanship to explore ways in which the earnings opportunities of the staff could be improved without adding to total costs and, therefore, causing further increases in Post Office prices.
Unfortunately, the union felt unable to participate in such joint meetings because it regarded it as a matter of principle that it must be assured of some increase in the Post Office's offer without any conditions whatsoever.
For its part, the Post Office was prepared to consider committing itself to a phased programme on shortening the incremental pay scales to commence next year rather than this, but only on condition that any further increase in its 8 per cent. offer for this year would be on a basis which would avoid further increases in costs and prices. Both sides made some change in their attitudes in the course of these talks, and I can only regret that the union did not feel this sufficient to justify joint talks under my chairmanship.
All I can say to the House at this stage is that my offer to the parties of joint talks remains open.

Mr. Page: Will my right hon. Friend take any farther opportunity by both parties to renew his painstaking efforts to seek a solution?

Mr. Carr: Most certainly.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of course the whole House welcomes his efforts to get the two sides together, and that we would certainly not wish in any way to do anything to jeopardise the talks—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is a change."] Just one moment. I have not finished. We would not wish to do anything to jeopardise


the talks if there were any prospect of their leading to a successful outcome. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of the union, as shown by the leaflet which it has distributed this morning at the very big rally held in Hyde Park, the talks have totally broken down, that the executive of the union has endorsed the rejection of the proposals put forward by the Post Office on the ground that it is being offered nothing more than the original 8 per cent., and that, on the productivity side, all that the corporation has done is to come forward with some general, vague talk but has not laid any concrete proposals on the table nor put any specific figure against its proposals?
I want to say urgently to the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] May I ask him this? I am sure that he is as concerned as I am about the continuance of this dispute. Therefore, I want to put this to the right hon. Gentleman very seriously. Not only are any discussions about productivity bound to take months; they ought to take months if the willing co-operation of the employees is to be obtained. Clearly, therefore, we cannot settle this dispute on the basis of vague talk about productivity. May I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman most seriously once again whether he will consider setting up a court of inquiry as being the only way to break the deadlock?

Mr. Carr: I have dealt with the court of inquiry point. I believe that one of the reasons against a court of inquiry in this case is that even a court of inquiry cannot continue in depth the joint negotiations between the parties which are essential to the right sort of productivity arrangements.
As to the vagueness of the Post Office's offer—if that is how the union describes it—one of the reasons why I hope that the two parties will come together under my chairmanship is in order to explore this. I cannot very easily transmit ideas of a detailed nature at third hand. That is why I believe that talks under my chairmanship would have been and still could be instrumental in bringing some help in this matter. I very much hope that that offer will yet be taken up.

Mrs. Castle: Yes, but—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Is not the right hon.

Gentleman aware—[Interruption.] Is he not experienced enough in productivity deals to know that even under his chairmanship it will be impossible to work out carefully formulated and costed productivity deals? What the union argues, therefore, is that its claim must stand on its own. It is in respect of that claim that we have to reach a settlement. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to rule out the possibility of a court of inquiry if his hopes of getting talks prove wrong.

Mr. Carr: I believe that what is needed is for both sides to have confidence in continuing machinery of negotiation between them leading to the release of productivity and, therefore, earning opportunities. They must do this themselves. My chairmanship can only help them to arrive at an arrangement in which they both have confidence for the future.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In the course of his talks with Mr. Jackson, did my right hon. Friend raise or did Mr. Jackson mention the possibility of holding a ballot of the union's membership, not least because some of us are being made aware by postmen in our constituencies that that is what they would like?

Mr. Carr: This matter has been discussed. But I ask both sides of the House to help me by not pressing me on these matters today.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the clear message which emanated from 40,000 postal workers at the Hyde Park rally this morning is that there will be no victory for the Post Office or, indeed, for the Government in this dispute? The right hon. Gentleman has again rejected the establishment of a court of inquiry. Will he examine again the possibility of inviting a distinguished public figure to act as a mediator in the dispute, certainly against the background of the information that the right hon. Gentleman has given us today about the difficulties of analysing the productivity aspects of the dispute?

Mr. Carr: I should like to point out to the House and to the parties that I am not looking for defeat or victory for anyone. I am looking for a solution to what is a very difficult stubborn problem in which both sides, whatever we may think, hold very sincerely to their present


positions. There has been some change of attitudes in the last day or two. I hope not to be pressed further today.

Paper and Board Manufacturing Industry (Scotland)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what cenveniently available figures he has for employment in the paper trade in Scotland over the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Howell: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the annual figures. They will show that between June, 1965, and June, 1969, the number of employees in employment in the paper and board manufacturing industry in Scotland fell from 18,400 to 16,200.

Mr. Dalyell: What guidance are the Government giving the paper industry in Scotland?

Mr. Howell: The future of the industry, where the Government are involved, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As for employment opportunities, my Department is watching closely what we recognise to be a worrying situation and, naturally, giving all the guidance that we can through the employment services.

Following is the information:


ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES IN EMPLOYMENT IN SCOTLAND IN PAPER AND BOARD (MINIMUM LIST HEADING 481 OF THE 1958 EDITION OF THE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION)





(Thousands)



Males
Females
Total


June, 1965
13·0
5·4
18·4


June, 1966
13·1
4·9
18·0


June, 1967
12·7
4·7
17·4


June, 1968
12·3
4·9
17·2


June, 1969
11·9
4·3
16·2


Estimates for June, 1970, are not yet available.

Weymouth/Portland Area

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average wage payable and the average level of unemployment in each of the developing areas and in that covered by the local office of his Ministry in the Weymouth/Portland area in any convenient week in January, 1971.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Estimates of average earnings in development areas or particular local office areas are not available. Estimates of average earnings in April, 1970, for standard sub-divisions of regions were published in the January, 1971, issue of the Department's Gazette. On 11th January the rate of unemployment for the Weymouth employment exchange area was 4·4 per cent. Of the development areas, the South-Western had the highest rate of 6 per cent. and Merseyside the lowest with 4·6 per cent.
I will, with permission, circulate the full table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. King: Is it not a fact that my constituents are drawing lower wages than many persons in development areas? Is it not all too possible to become befuddled by the expression "development area"? Will my hon. Friend pay far greater attention to areas like the one which I have indicated where wages over many years have been low, unemployment is growing, and the Government's efforts to aid them are far too few?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is quite right about the low wages in that area, but a number of factors are involved. We are not complacent about that area. My Department will do everything that it can to help. The question of development areas is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There are bound to be pockets of high unemployment outside the development areas, and, unfortunately, this is such an area.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the reasoning of the Prime Minister that high unemployment is caused by inflationary wage settlements? If so, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at one of the speeches of his right hon. Friend in December, 1969, in which he called the Labour Government's incomes policy a disgraceful idiocy because he claimed that a wages restraint policy increased unemployment? Is not the truth of the matter that the Prime Minister's policy is not only disgraceful idiocy but disgraceful duplicity as well and a substitute for a fair and just incomes policy?

Mr. Smith: I thought that the Prime Minister's policy was very good. I should have thought that it had been proved


even to hon. Gentlemen opposite that cost inflation causes unemployment.

Percentage rate of unemployment, males and females, at 11th January,1971


South Western Development Area
…
…
…
…
…
6·0


Merseyside Development Area
…
…
…
…
…
4·6


Northern Development Area
…
…
…
…
…
5·1


Scottish Development Area
…
…
…
…
…
5·5


Welsh Development Area
…
…
…
…
…
4·9


Weymouth (including Portland) Employment Exchange Area
…
…
…
…
…
4·4

The New Earnings Survey estimates of average gross weekly earnings in April, 1970, of full-time men aged 21 and over in the regions or sub-divisions which correspond roughly to the development areas, are:—








Full-time men


Region
Sub-division
Manual
Non-Manual
Total








£
£
£


South Western
…
Western
…
…
…
21·9
29·8
24·5


North Western
…
Merseyside
…
…
…
28·9
35·9
31·1


Northern
…
Whole Region
…
…
…
25·5
33·3
27·6


North Western
…
Furness
…
…
…
26·3
n.a.
28·4


Scotland
…
Whole Region
…
…
…
25·2
33·8
27·7


Wales
…
Central and Eastern Valleys
…
…
…
25·3
n.a.
26·9




West South Wales
…
…
…
27·6
31·9
28·4




North West Wales (excluding North Coast)
24·7
n.a.
29·1




South West Wales
…
…
…
24·4
n.a.
27·3




Central Wales
…
…
…
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


GREAT BRITAIN;
…
…
…
…
…
26·2
35·7
29·4


The estimates are subject to sampling error.

Coventry, Nuneaton and Bedworth

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now publish separate employment figures for Coventry, Nuneaton and Bedworth.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The estimated numbers of insured employees in the Coventry, Nuneaton, and Bedworth employment exchanges areas at June, 1969, the latest date for which figures are available, are 190,906; 30,375; and 8,657 respectively.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Minister aware that, particularly in these difficult times when the Government are striving hard to increase unemployment, the normal unemployed percentage in my constituency is not only higher than that of Coventry but is normally twice the West Midlands average? Will the Minister now give me some indication of the current percentages and levels of unemployment in Nuneaton and Bedworth differentiated from Coventry?

Mr. Smith: It was the policy of the previous Administration which set us on this course of high unemployment. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman

The following is the Table:

has got a point in that there may be a case for looking again at the question whether Nuneaton and Bedworth should be included in the Coventry travel-to-work area. At present we believe that it is the right policy, but with the 1971 census figures, which should be available fairly soon, we are prepared to look again at the question, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of persons living in Nuneaton and Bedworth but registered at Coventry employment exchanges.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I regret that this information is not readily available.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the Minister for giving his information to the previous questtion. Will he bear in mind in the inquiry which he is to undertake that there are serious complications in drawing unemployment benefits, particularly short-term unemployment benefits? Will the Minister take these important considerations into account in the inquiry?

Mr. Smith: Yes. I thought that the system was working fairly smoothly there, but I will look into the matter.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Prime Minister if he will review departmental responsibilities for the employment of the handicapped school leaver with a view to assisting local education authorities to ensure that the full potential of handicapped persons is developed before they become the responsibility of the Department of Employment.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have carefully examined this question and I find there is already the closest co-ordination between all Departments concerned with developing the potential of the handicapped while still at school and with fitting them into employment.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Prime Minister accept that I am rather disappointed with that answer? There have been experiments in certain areas to try to get youth employment officers to specialise in taking care of the disabled and handicapped so that they can be taken care of early in their school careers rather than late and, therefore, be ensured of the opportunity either of further education or of employment. This ought not to be left to the disablement resettlement officers.

The Prime Minister: Yes. I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in this matter. There are, in fact, 60 such officers helping with careers who are specialists in the problems of the disabled. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is not possible to have separate officers throughout the country to deal only with the problems of the disabled. Therefore, we must try to get the best results we can with the numbers available. It is also true that on the Central Youth Employment Executive, which is the responsibility of the Department of Employment, there are representatives of the Education Departments as well as of Employment.

DEVOLUTION OF POWER

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for the devolution

of Government power so that more decisions are made locally.

The Prime Minister: The Government are examining the possibilities of devolving power to the new local authorities to be established in accordance with the proposals for local government reorganisation published last week. It would be unrealistic to make any proposals for devolution on a regional basis until the Commission on the Constitution has reported.

Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend agree with President Nixon that one of the frustrations of the last decade has been the remoteness of government from the people? In the light of what my right hon. Friend has just said, may I ask whether he will give an assurance that the new plans for local government reorganisation will not hold up devolution when we have the Crowther Report?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I read President Nixon's speech, in particular that part dealing with devolution. I do not think that conditions in our two countries, one on each side of the Atlantic, are similar. Many people would agree that the real problem of government and democracy is how to have an area of government on a sufficient scale to provide economies and the services required and, at the same time, on a small enough scale to give that local participation which we want.

Mr. Grimond: Apart from devolution on a regional basis, may I ask how we stand now on devolution for Scotland and Wales? Is it the Government's intention to give legislative effect to their proposals associated with the name of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), or do we wait until the Crowther Commission reports? If so, when is it expected that the Commission will report?

The Prime Minister: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman when the Commission will report. We have had no information about that.
Concerning the Scottish Assembly or Convention, we said that we would deal with this after the implementation of


local government reform in Scotland. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now produced a White Paper dealing with that matter, and legislation will follow.

Mr. John Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolution of some of the powers of government to regional authorities might lessen the load on this House, that that in turn might make it possible to reduce the number of Members of Parliament, and that that in turn might enable us to devote the money saved to improve the facilities available to the rest?

The Prime Minister: I agree that devolution might ease the load on this House. I should not like to follow my hon. Friend further in his argument.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this side of the House agrees with what he said, that, as a result of local government reform, whatever form it takes, this is an opportunity, as stated in our White Paper and, I understand, in the statement of his right hon. Friend, for allowing more decisions to be taken locally without central Government interference. On the major question, we must, of course, await the Crowther Report. This House has just lost a very good colleague of many hon. Members, Arthur Skeffington. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in relation to the words which he used about participation, the report of the Committee presided over by Arthur Skeffington on participation in planning decisions broke new ground on these questions? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make sure that his Ministers work towards the kind of ideals set out by our late colleague?

The Prime Minister: I would certainly ask the members of the Government to consider this. I think that it is common ground on both sides of the House that local government requires greater participation and understanding, and we would be anxious to devolve further functions on it in the legislation which we are bringing forward. Of course, this is also tied up with the question of local government finance, which the Government are examining, and on which they will publish a Green Paper shortly.

CIVIL LIST

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of increasing inflation, he will, as a matter of urgency, establish the necessary machinery for inquiring into the terms of the Civil List.

The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to add to the answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member on 27th October, 1970.—[Vol. 805, c. 25–6.]

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not unduly worried by that? Does he recall his own statement on 11th November, 1969, when he called for a Select Committee, since when inflation has proceeded apace? Can he give the House an assurance that no payments are being made out of funds not approved by this House in the meanwhile? Has he had any further representations from the inhabitants of the west end of The Mall about the increasing hardship there?

The Prime Minister: I said in my statement, at the time when the Leader of the Opposition told the House about the situation, that it was the responsibility of the Government of the day to propose to the House when action should be taken by the customary means of a Select Committee and obtaining its advice. Her Majesty's Government fully accept that responsibility. On the other question, the position remains the same as the Leader of the Opposition then told the House, which is that the funds available to Her Majesty from other sources, although not inexhaustible, will suffice for some time yet.

REMPLOY

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to a Remploy factory.

The Prime Minister: I have done so on a number of occasions in the past and I shall be glad to do so again when a suitable opportunity arises.

Mr. Ashley: I appreciate that reply, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the efforts of Remploy and a number of other firms, the rate of registered disabled unemployed is now five times the national average? Is he further aware that the number of firms


which are evading their responsibilities to employ 3 per cent. disabled people has now risen to the astonishing figure of 57 per cent.—that is, 36,000 firms evading their legal responsibilities? There is strong circumstantial evidence that some of them are breaking the law. Would the right hon. Gentleman convene a conference between the Law Officers of the Crown and the other Ministers concerned to see what can be done to persuade the more irresponsible employers to fulfil their obligations?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the figures for the percentage of disabled unemployed are comparable with the normal unemployment figures, because it is well known that a considerable number of disabled who are employed do not register. It is, therefore, not possible to compare them, but I accept that the figure is high. On the second point, I am aware of the very large figure which the hon. Member has given of the number of firms not employing their quota of disabled. There may be a variety of explanations for this, but the Secretary of State for Employment will now extend his inspection of employers' records to examine this position and see whether further action needs to be taken.

Mr. Lamond: Does the Prime Minister accept the suggestion that when one takes into consideration the saving to the community in social security payments and unemployment benefit, the cost of employing 7,500 people in Remploy factories is nothing more than the effort required? If he does agree with that, will he investigate the possibility of considerably extending the activities of Remploy, so that it may employ many of the disabled people who at the moment cannot obtain employment?

The Prime Minister: The average cost of employing a person in Remploy today works out at about £700 a year. I should like to check the comparison which the hon. Gentleman makes, but that means that it is a substantial sum. Remploy at the moment provides employment for nearly 7,500 people, and is expanding this to 8,000 people by, in particular, building three new factories and providing extensions.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (ENFORCEMENT)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to coordinate the activities of the Treasury, Inland Revenue, the Home Office with police responsibilities, the Attorney-General, the Scottish Office and the Department of Health and Social Security to create a system whereby alimony or aliment awarded by court order is more efficiently collected from men and paid to separated or divorced women.

The Prime Minister: The Government recognise the case for improving the present machinery for the enforcement of maintenance orders, and are examining what changes can be made. In addition, the Finer Committee is currently considering the financial and other problems of the one-parent family.

Mr. Dalyell: Since, in our constituency work, M.P.s in all parts of the House are more and more confronted with this increasingly pathetic problem of divorcées and separated women who are simply not getting what was awarded to them by the court, and since lawyers do not really like touching these cases, could Downing Street influence be used to ask this question of Whitehall, the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, "Are you really sure that, in this day and age, the tenets which you have held about tracing individuals, on the whole question of secrecy and confidentiality and on the administrative objections are still as valid as they once were?"?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about the seriousness of this problem and about the hardship which it causes. At the same time, he will recognise that the question of the ethics involved is one which needs careful consideration. That we are giving to it. In fact, the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, will go some way to helping in this situation, as I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise. As the House knows, he has himself presented a Bill. We have not yet had an opportunity of studying it, but we will do so with great interest when it is printed.

Mr. Fidler: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the distress and hardship caused


in a number of cases in magistrates' courts where the clerks and others fail to take the prompt action which they should to see that the persons responsible for these maintenance dues are chased along to make the payments?

The Prime Minister: It was the purpose of the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, to speed up the application of the orders and also to ensure continuity of payment once they were made. When this comes into force this year, I believe that it will deal with the point which my hon. Friend has made.

VIETNAM

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister whether he now intends to seek to make an official visit to Vietnam, in view of the recent developments in the area.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 28th January in Canberra the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Geoffrey Baker, spoke about the desirability of British troops fighting alongside the Australians in Vietnam? Does he agree with his general? Also, does he agree with the sentiments expressed in answer to Questions a fortnight ago by the Minister of State for Defence?

The Prime Minister: I agree with what the Minister of State for Defence said in the House. I was here at the time and heard him say it. He explained in detail the circumstances in which General Baker made his statement, which was that, from the point of view of his emotions, he felt that, as this was the first occasion on which Australian, New Zealand and British troops had not been fighting together, it was a sad one. He made absolutely no declaration of military or political policy.

Mr. Blaker: Have the Government yet received any information from the Soviet Union of any willingness at all to reconvene the Geneva Conference, whether with the same membership or with an expanded one?

The Prime Minister: I regret not. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary

told the House on 9th February that he had expressed his willingness to the Soviet Government and also publicly to reconvene the Conference. Of course, we still hope that Mr. Gromyko, as the other Co-Chairman, will agree.

PRODUCTIVITY

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Departments concerned with increasing productivity throughout the economy;
(2) to what extent the encouragement of productivity is the responsibility of the Department of Employment.

The Prime Minister: There is close consultation between all Departments concerned with productivity questions. The Department of Employment has a particular responsibility for promoting the efficient use of manpower.

Mr. Carter: While I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him to explain in greater detail precisely why he is satisfied with his departmental efforts to increase national productivity, particularly bearing in mind that the previous Conservative Government in the four-year period 1961–64 achieved an increase in national productivity of only 8·4 per cent. compared with the Labour Government's achievement of an increase in the four-year period 1966–69 of 11·2 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to face up to any challenge of the hon. Gentleman about the record of Conservative as opposed to Labour Administrations. Productivity, however, cannot be a matter only for the Government. It is a matter largely for trade unions and management, and both have a major part to play.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that earlier this afternoon an important statistic was given by one of his Ministerial colleagues to the effect that stoppages and days lost in industry had increased by 525 per cent. measured over the seven years from 1963, the last year of Tory Administration, to 1970? Should not the 146 Divisions on the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill be read in that context?

The Prime Minister: I have already ventured into this sphere once today and I do not propose to do so again. Poor industrial relationships obviously have a major influence on productivity. Even more serious I think, is the impact on deliveries to customers overseas.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that under the present Government the situation has been going from bad to worse? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have increased unemployment figures, postal workers being offered absolutely no progress whatever after being out for five weeks, and a complete lack of efficiency and competence on the part of the Government? Is he aware that if he really wishes to challenge this side of the House he should be prepared to extend that challenge in the country and allow the people to decide.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be able to judge from the response which his hon. Friends gave to that suggestion how unwelcome it was to them.

EXE VALE HOSPITAL, EXMINSTER (FIRE)

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he will make a statement on the fire at Exe Vale Hospital, Exminster on Wednesday, 24th February.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I regret to inform the House that a fire occurred at the Exe Vale Hospital in the early morning of 23rd February, 1971. It was in a ground floor side ward occupied by six patients. The fire was discovered at 12.53 a.m. and the alarm was given. Staff responded immediately, evacuated the patients and extinguished the fire before the arrival of the fire brigade.
Five patients and one member of the staff were injured and taken to the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital. One of the patients has since died, two others are receiving treatment for burns, a fourth has already returned to Exe Vale Hospital and the other is expected to return today. The member of the staff has also left hospital.
I wish to express my deepest sympathy to the relatives of the patient who died and to pay tribute to the efforts of the staff in dealing with the fire. An investigation into the circumstances is taking place.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that statement and I naturally wish to associate myself with his expression of sympathy.
Will he bear in mind that this occurrence underlines once again the importance of maintaining the full establishment of staff at mental hospitals, particularly during the night? We would all wish to pay tribute to the prompt action which was taken by the staff who were on duty at the time, so preventing an even worse disaster from happening.

Sir K. Joseph: I accept my hon. Friend's implication.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we fully share the sympathy which he expressed to the relatives of the patient who died in this unfortunate incident and endorse the tribute he paid to the staff who had to deal with this fire? While it is too early for him to make any further comment, can he say who will be conducting the investigation and when the report is expected?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot give a firm answer to either part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. At present the hospital management committee and the local fire authority are studying the incident, but the regional hospital board may itself decide to have an inquiry; and, of course, the coroner is involved since there will be an inquest.

Sir F. Bennett: As the hon. Member whose constituent was the only individual to die in this unhappy affair, may I be associated with the sympathetic remarks made by my right hon. Friend? To be fair to the hospital, is it not a fact that comparatively recently an inspection was carried out by the fire authorities, when everything was found to be satisfactory?

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that the staff responded immediately to the alarm and that so far—though I have not yet got all the information that I would wish to have—the arrangements are thought to have gone well.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 1ST MARCH—Debate on a Motion to approve the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1971 (Command No. 4592).

Remaining stages of Mr. Speaker King's Retirement Bil.

TUESDAY, 2ND MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on defence

Lords Amendments to the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.

Motions on the Welfare Food (Extension of definition) Order, the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme, the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme, the Payments in Aid of Agricultural (Extension) Order and on the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 3RD MARCH—Supply [11th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on the sale of arms to South Africa, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.

The Defence Vote on Account 1971–72 will also be before the House.

Motion on the General Practice Finance Corporation Order.

THURSDAY, 4TH MARCH—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report of the Roskill Commission on the Third London Airport.

FRIDAY, 5TH MARCH—Private Members' Motions.

MONDAY, 8TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Immigrants Bill.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will have formed his own view of the length of business that he has announced for Tuesday night. Is he aware that the House is becoming increasingly concerned about business being added without the House being informed, except by means of the Notice Paper? Is he aware, for example, that tonight the House is being asked, at rather short

notice, to take a Motion relating to Scottish legal aid, though we recognise that this is necessary and urgent?
Is he aware that it would be better—I press it no further at this stage—if the Leader of the House prevented the Government's affairs from getting into such a muddle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."j—with the result that he must do it in this way? [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not know that these Regulations must become law by 1st March, but that could have been foreseen by the Government. Would he agree that when this sort of thing happens it would be helpful to the House if there were a supplementary business statement, as is usual in these matters?
Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say if there is likely to be a Government statement on police pay, which we read impeccably in the Press today is to be announced this afternoon but apparently not in this House? Will he undertake that a statement will be made on this question in the House tomorrow morning?
In connection with the Immigration Bill, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that, in accordance with the precedents of previous immigration Measures, the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a long time since we had an official debate on Wales? There has been a recent debate on Scotland, of which there should be more. What are his intentions about a debate on Welsh affairs in Government time?

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about Tuesday's business is that I think it will be seen by the House that many of the Orders which are down for Tuesday night will be ones which hon. Members will want. [Interruption.] When hon. Members have studied them, I think they will agree that they are Orders which the whole House wants. Perhaps hon. Members would like to study them, after which I think they will agree that they like them.
The right hon. Gentleman next questioned me about the Motion which has been tabled for tonight in relation to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, He is perfectly correct to say that it is urgently


needed. This has been the case in the past and I therefore do not accept his accusation of muddle. As has happened with all Governments, including the one of which the right hon. Gentleman was the head, these matters must sometimes be tabled at rather short notice.
We are acting in accordance with precedent and I recall that when we were in Opposition I was frequently at the receiving end of this procedure. The Opposition were properly informed. I agree that wherever possible the matter should be announced. However, I am not anxious to make supplementary business statements—that is, unless it is felt by the Opposition, when they are informed, that I should do so. If the Opposition consider that I should do it, then I would do so, but this has not normally been thought necessary in the past.
There is not normally a statement on matters like police pay. However, I will call the attention of my right lion. Friend the Home Secretary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, who will no doubt see whether a statement should be made to the House. But I can make no commitment on that.
The Government, having considered all the circumstances, have formed the view that it would be right for the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill to be handled by a Standing Committee upstairs.
As to debates on Wales, I undertake that, as under previous Governments, there will be a debate on Wales on the Floor of the House, but I cannot undertake when it will be.

Mr. Harold Wilson: We understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties on the legislative timetable. All of us concede that if he felt he had a free hand he would want the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill to be on the Floor of the House, but for the exigencies of his time-table. But is he aware that the decision he has just announced is contrary to all precedent in these matters? It is a major constitutional Measure affecting citizenship rights in this country and, still more, introducing new concepts about citizenship rights both within the Commonwealth and as between Commonwealth and alien immigrants. In those circumstances, whatever his difficulties,

will he reconsider the matter, because there is no warrant in any precedent for such a Bill to be taken upstairs?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures about the difficulties, because they do not exist. All the circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman has outlined were taken into consideration before the Government came to their decision.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So that Wednesday's debate on South African arms may take place on the basis of the fullest possible information, will my right hon. Friend seek the Opposition's agreement to the making available to the House of the papers which passed on this matter under the late Government, including in particular the Cabinet papers submitted by the then Foreign Secretary and the then Secretary of State for Defence?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is not a matter within my responsibility, but no doubt right hon. Members opposite will have noted what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Despite the fact that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are a little misled by what they have read, I shall be very happy to give authority for those papers to be made available when the right hon. Gentlemen give authority for the papers about Suez to be made available.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Lord Chancellor during the next week, if it is constitutional to do so, to find a means of conveying to the French legal authorities the statement made by the judge in the recent appeal case reversing an order transferring custody of an English child to a French father? When the judge reversed the decision and gave the custody to the mother he asked whether his views on the case could be conveyed to the French legal authorities. May I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the Lord Chancellor will try to convey that information to whomsoever it is right for it to be conveyed to in France, as the case is causing grave anxiety and is detrimental to the child and the mother?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I think that


I should confine myself to an assurance that I will bring to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor what she has said. I do not think that it would be right for me to go further.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: This is rather a different point. Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the first Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, bearing in mind that we do not want to lose the momentum created by the European Conservation Year which was launched 12 months ago?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the importance of the Report and the interest which hon. Members throughout the House have in it, but there should be an interval for hon. Members to study it and note what it says. I could not give a commitment on a debate at this stage.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Many of us who would have welcomed the Immigration Bill's being discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House will be relieved that it is going upstairs, because we shall not have the manipulation of the voting procedure which has brought the House into disrepute.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I should be wise to confine myself to no further comment.

Mr. James Johnson: What is happening in the mysterious matter of the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme, 1970? The Leader of the House, in whose word I have every faith, gave an assurance yesterday that he would do something about this. Can he tell us what he is doing?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I can. In view of the terms of the Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to say that he will withdraw the Motion relating to the Scheme.

Mr. Moate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Fire Precautions Bill was delayed by the irresponsible filibustering of Labour hon. Members? As it is an important Measure, concerned with the

saving of life, when will time be provided for its remaining stages?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is true that it is an important Measure. I understand that both sides agree that it is thoroughly desirable to get it through the House, and I hope that an opportunity will be provided at an early stage for this to happen quickly.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that in the last Government there were no fewer than nine Ministers from Wales but that in the present Government there is not a single one, and that the affairs of Wales are tending to be neglected? There is an urgent need for a debate on the Floor of the House on Welsh affairs.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept for one moment that the Ministers from Wales in this Government are not more than capable of carrying out the work conducted by a very large number in the previous Government. I have given an undertaking that there will be a debate on Welsh affairs on the Floor of the House, but I cannot say when.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give an early opportunity to the House to consider the findings of the Select Committee on Procedure on Scrutiny of Taxation, published today, bearing in mind the great advantage of its recommendations being adopted in time for the consideration of this year's Budget?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I have read the Select Committee's Report, which raises some important points. I cannot say that there will be time for a debate, but I can undertake that the Report will be very carefully considered and that if any of its recommendations can be put into effect this year the Government will certainly consider doing so.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: What circumstances other than the exigencies of the Government's legislative programme have led the right hon. Gentleman to break the precedent on all previous Immigration Bills and not to take the Measure on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have said before that the Government considered all the circumstances and formed this view. The


Government are entitled to make up their mind. They have, and they will have the Bill upstairs.

Mr. Benyon: In view of the large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate on the Roskill Commission's Report, will my right hon. Friend extend the debate after 10 o'clock?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir. I have had representations from a large number of hon. Members that they wish to have more time for that debate, and I therefore undertake to seek to suspend the rule for two hours for that purpose.

Mr. Lawson: It is some months since the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking to set up a Select Committee on Scottish affairs. What is the matter? When is it to be set up?

Mr. Whitelaw: I undertook that the Committee would be set up at some time. I note, however, that Scottish Members seem fully engaged in Scottish legislation at present.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend consider flushing out the usual channels sufficiently next week to be able to resist the temptation of following in the bad habit of earlier Leaders of the House and former Government Chief Whips of delaying the issuing of by-election Writs for up to nine months? Is he aware that five by-elections are now pending? Could not the Writs be moved next week in order to enfranchise the four former Labour-held constituencies and the one Tory constituency so that we may gauge public opinion in support of the Government on the Industrial Relations Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not join my hon. Friend in the strictures on my predecessors on either side of the House. Neither they nor I have any responsibility for the particular matter he raises.

Mr. Conlan: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services are falling on Tuesdays, with the result that they are restricted to 45 minutes because the Prime Minister's Questions start at 3.15? This practice will continue for the foreseeable future unless the right hon. Gentleman considers

staggering questioning, so that occasionally the Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services fall on a Monday or a Wednesday so that the House has a full hour in which to question this very important Department.

Mr. Whitelaw: The problem of finding a Question roster satisfactory to all interests in the House is inevitably extremely difficult. Whenever one switches a Department from one day to another, to the satisfaction of those interested in that Department, one offends other hon. Members interested in a different Department. This is inevitably a problem of the Question roster. In truth, the only satisfactory way to get through more Questions is to be quicker in with them. That aspect has been mentioned to the House by you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hastings: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful to the Government, since they want the views of the House about the Roskill Report next week, to limit both the length and the number of speeches from both Front Benches to two? Might it not be more useful in that event if the Front Bench speeches came at the end of the debate rather than at the beginning?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. I will consider it, but I could not give him any assurance.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will carry out the promise he made last Monday to make a statement next Monday before the defence debate on the withdrawal from the Persian Gulf? I think that the country would be interested to know that the Government are breaking their election promise on this matter, although on this side of the House we welcome their decision.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept the premise on which the right hon. Gentleman puts his question. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement about the Persian Gulf on Monday before the defence debate.

Mr. Dalyell: In the defence debate, is there any point in a Front Bench speech from the Government since it has already been made by Lord Carrington? Is it


desirable that major speeches should be made in another place rather than in the House of Commons? Since the speech has been made, will the right hon. Gentleman facilitate at the Table Office my 52 Written Questions for tomorrow on Lord Carrington's speech, which would greatly help the House as to clarification of the issues in the debate?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman must wait and see the way we handle the debate and what speakers take part on our behalf. I cannot possibly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks about his Questions.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Friday the Divorce (Scotland) Bill got its Second Reading? Can he give an assurance that he will take steps to see that it gets to the Second Scottish Standing Committee upstairs?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think I can give such an assurance on Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important statement to the effect that the Government have decided to withdraw the Fishing Vessels Grant Scheme. There are very serious implications. I welcome his statement, but will he tell us whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food proposes to clarify the situation to the House, since grants to applicants for assistance have been frozen since 27th October and this is creating a grave situation in the industry?

Mr. Whitelaw: What I said was that my right hon. Friend had asked me to tell the House that he would withdraw the Motiton relating to the Order in view of the Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. That does not mean to say that another Order will not be laid which conforms with the terms of the Select Committee.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision to stifle debate on the Immigrants Bill? Is he aware that, following the stifling of full democratic discussion on the Industrial Relations Bill, his latest decision is hardly likely to expedite the return to normal relations in this House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept that I am in any way stifling debate. I believe that there is every opportunity for consideration of the Immigrants Bill and that it will be best discussed in Standing Committee. I note that, whether Bills are taken in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House, it seems difficult to please the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would feel it right to press him on the matter raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on what might appear to be a constituency point but which, as she made clear, raises issues of great principle? Will he give an undertaking that, once the Lord Chancellor has studied all the events in the case, we shall have a statement on the action to be taken by the Government to follow up what is a very clear decision of the highest courts in this country in a case of human interest involving a very wrong and very unfair decision that might go on for ever unless urgent action is taken?

Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise the importance of what the right hon. Gentleman has said following on the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward). I think I would be right at this stage merely to say that I will urgently consult my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. It is correct to give him an opportunity of considering the case, of which, I must say, I know very little myself. Once my noble and learned Friend has considered it, if it would seem right that a statement should be made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, it will be made.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) moves Amendment No. 2—the first one you have selected—I wonder whether I might put to you a point about the selection of Amendments. I understand, of course, that it is not open to any hon. Member to question the selections which you make of the Amendments on Report, but I want to put one or two considerations which I hope you will take into account in the future course of our debates today and perhaps in future selections on a Bill of this nature. I am not seeking in any sense to question your ruling because I understand that that would be improper. I hope you will not regard it as impertinent on my part if I say that many of us regard the selection which has been made as being perhaps astringent in the sense that many Amendments which some of us had, mistakenly, thought would have been called are not to be called.
I want to put to you a point which perhaps may not have been put to you with sufficient force, and I raise it now precisely for that reason. It refers to a matter which was mentioned only a few minutes ago in the House. On all previous occasions, the Committee stages of coal industry Bills have been taken on the Floor of the House. Those of us who come from mining constituencies have always represented to the Government of the day that this convention should be continued. We were therefore aggrieved, if that is not too self-pitying a word to use, to find that that course was not taken on this occasion but that the Bill was referred to a Committee upstairs.
It seems that many of my hon. Friends representing mining constituencies who have tabled Amendments on Report may be deprived of their right to press them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and several other of my hon. Friends who were denied the right to participate in the discussion in

Committee because of the change in practice introduced by the Government will be deprived of the opportunity to press their Amendments.
4.0 p.m.
I think that this matter should be considered. A list of Amendments selected is convenient to the House, but I understand that alterations can be made in the list if Mr. Speaker believes it to be necessary. The question of whether a Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House must affect the selection of Amendments for the Report stage. Those of us who represent mining constituencies think that this is a matter of great importance.
I could refer to Amendments tabled by my hon. Friends who were denied the right to serve on the Committee which are quite different in form from those discussed in Committee and which have not been selected. On one Bill after another, although convention dictated that the Committee stage should be taken on the Floor of the House, the Government have decided that it should be taken upstairs. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will protect our rights and ensure that the selection of Amendments for the Report stage does not add to our grievance and deprives us of opportunities which have hitherto been available to every Member representing mining constituencies.
With very minor exceptions, all the Members who represent mining constituences sit on this side of the House.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: No.

Mr. Foot: Therefore, if there is a severe selection of Amendments in Committee in addition to an arbitrary decision by the Government to take a Bill upstairs instead of on the Floor of the House, Members who are sent here to speak for miners are deprived of their rights.
I hope that you will take my representation into account, Mr. Speaker, because some of us are not prepared to see the situation where representatives from mining constituencies—[Interruption.] There are courses open to Members who think that the business of the House should be ordered differently; hon. Members must understand that. In this instance, several of my hon. Friends


from mining constituencies who tabled Amendments which were not discussed in Committee have been denied by the selection of Amendments the right to move them. I am not criticising your selection, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that you will take into account what I have said.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. May I put to you a true consideration, Mr. Speaker? We had 13 very long sittings in Committee. I have not added up the aggregate number of hours which we spent considering the Bill in Committee, but it was a very long Committee stage.
Will you, in particular, Mr. Speaker, take into account the inaccurate statement of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that all mining constituencies are held by Labour Members, except for one or two minor exceptions? As always, the hon. Gentleman is grossly inaccurate. For example, will you bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) represents a very important mining constituency? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My hon. Friend who represents Cannock—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is a temporary aberration."] No, it is not. The electors of Cannock hurled out the former incumbent of the seat and put in my hon. Friend. It was the biggest turnover of votes in the country.
Will you also bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) represents several thousand coal miners? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Many other Conservative Members have important coal production and mining interests in their constituencies. In any event, Mr. Speaker, will you please bear in mind the major consideration that there are millions of consumers of coal who are desperately afflicted by the exorbitant price of solid fuel?

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I am being given a certain amount of assistance; I am not sure that I need it.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has made a serious point. Selecting Amendments

is one of the most difficult jobs which the Chair has to do. This is the first time that I have had to do it. I looked carefully at the list of Amendments and tried to take into account all the various factors to ensure that there is a series of wide-ranging debates. I am told that I have been rather more generous in my selection than has usually been the case in the past. The list of selected Amendments is provisional. Let us proceed as I have suggested.

Clause 2

EXTENSION OF POWER TO MAKE REDUND
ANCY PAYMENT SCHEMES

Mr. Eric G. Varley: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 46, at end insert:
(4) In any redundancy payment scheme made by the Secretary of State under the Act of 1967 and this Act there shall be included a requirement that the benefits payable shall be calculated on the appropriate existing wage equivalent of the employee's pre-redundancy accupation.
(5) In any redundancy payment scheme made by the Secretary of State under the Act of 1967 and this Act a redundant person who in all other respects satisfies the criteria laid down by Article 4 of the Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order 1968 shall not be disqualified by any employment of not exceding six months' duration entered into by the coal industry employee subsequent to his dismissal by a coal industry employer but his pension shall during such period abate.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 29, page 2, line 46, at end insert:
(4) In any redundancy payment scheme made by the Secretary of State under the Act of 1967 and this Act there shall be included a requirement that the benefits payable shall be calculated on the appropriate existing and prospective wage equivalent of the employee's pre-redundancy occupation.

Mr. Varley: These Amendments have been tabled primarily to enable a discussion to take place on certain aspects of the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme.
The Minister for Industry told the Standing Committee on 21st January that when the present scheme comes to an end another scheme will be drawn up. He said:
We must be quite certain that any new scheme takes account of the needs of the individuals concerned and of all the circumstances. This means that there has got to


be a proper review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 21st January, 1971; c. 150.]
We agree completely with that and would like to offer suggestions for the review. We seek to get the principle accepted by the Minister that in drawing up a new scheme he will have regard to changes in the wages pattern taking place in the mining industry.
At the moment, beneficiaries under the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme have their payments or benefits calculated on a definition of pre-redundancy earnings. This is related to the mineworkers' average weekly earnings during what is called the period in the relevant tax year. Once the calculation is made and the amount fixed, the level of payment remains constant, with very few minor exceptions into which I need not go. For the 156 weeks that a mineworker qualifies, his entitlement to payment is static. Currently about 22,500 redundant mineworkers are receiving benefit under the Redundant Mineworkers (Payment Scheme) Order. They are in various stages of their benefit entitlement. Some have just started and some are coming very near to the end of their three years' entitlement. About 1,300 have ceased to benefit under the scheme and have not yet reached the age of 65.
We were very sorry that the Minister was not able to accept our Amendment in Committee, which would have continued the entitlement to benefit. We hope that he will honour the undertaking which he gave in Committee and look at the review to see whether the 156-week period can be extended.
The first part of the Amendment applies to the 22,500 redundant mineworkers who are still benefiting under the scheme and, perhaps equally important, to those miners who may not yet be affected but who could be affected if any pit closures took place in future.
I shall not refer to the second part of the Amendment because we now believe that the reasons for which we sought to make that part of the Amendment have now been dealt with. We are concerned about the first part of the Amendment. We seek to establish how far we can get some inflation-proofing into the redundancy benefits. I am not suggesting that

the principle that we seek to establish is an easy one. It is a difficult one. We hope that the Minister will take note of our views.
There are many difficulties, but the basic philosophy behind the redundancy payments scheme was to see how far it was possible to provide a benefit to compensate for loss of expected earnings. Many difficulties have arisen and some have been sorted out with the Minister's Department and have been accepted, as they were previously sorted out when my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) had responsibility for these matters.
Calculations of pre-redundancy earnings penalised miners, for instance, who had suffered chest diseases and who had not worked regularly. The pre-redundancy earnings provision created hardship for many mineworkers who served as magistrates and local councillors and who had taken time off work. That was excluded. There were cases in which pits had closed and men who had worked previously as power loader operators, for instance, in highly paid jobs, were kept on at the pit for a few months as salvage workers. They were downgraded as a consequence, and that affected their pre-redundancy earnings.
Notwithstanding those examples, there are now 22,500 people at varying degrees of entitlement whose benefits have been eroded by the calculation of pre-redundancy earnings. The philosophy behind the scheme, which is crucial to my case, was to see how far we could compensate for the loss of expected earnings.
4.15 p.m.
The main aspect is that there have been three increases in wages to mineworkers since the scheme was introduced. I am not very prophetic when I say that there will be many more increases while the scheme is in operation. We are arguing that, when a general wage increase takes place in the industry, redundant workers benefiting under the Redundant Mineworkers (Payment Scheme) Order should also have their payments re-adjusted.
It is not a novel suggestion for the industry. Many of my hon. Friends can no doubt give examples. I cite the example of the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme, related to accidents and diseases, where a pre-accident earnings


review takes place after adjustment in general wage increases within the industry. The same principle could be incorporated within the Redundant Mineworkers (Payment Scheme) Order by accepting the definition—the words of the Amendment may not be precisely right—of pre-redundancy earnings and prospective wage equivalents.
Mineworkers have had three wage increases since 1968. Taking the average earnings of all workers in the industry since the scheme started, the pattern has been as follows. The figures I give are from the Coal Board's accounts which also correspond with tax years. The average earnings of all workers between 1967 and 1968 were £21 2s. 8d. Between 1968 and 1969 they had risen to £22 7s. 6d. For 1969 to 1970 they were £23 16s. 5d. At the end of this tax year my guess is that they will be about £25.
It will be seen from those figures that there has been a serious erosion of the basic philosophy of the assurance given that it was to compensate for loss of expected earnings. Many of my hon. Friends have said that this is not a redundancy scheme at all but a mineworkers payments scheme.
We know that the Minister will meet all the parties interested in this matter when he makes a new scheme. He will meet the National Union of Mineworkers and the other trade unions involved. We should like him to say how his thinking goes on the new scheme. It should be inflation proof. I have demonstrated by the figures that there has been a serious erosion of the basic philosophy. I hope that the Minister can give some encouragement on this matter.

Mr. Richard Kelley: A term that was used some months ago in the House could be applicable to the idea put forward in the Amendment—the question of built-in dynamism. We shall probably read more about that in the New Statesman than we shall hear in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, that is the idea we have in putting forward the Amendment.
Changes of a very volatile character are taking place. We are living in a highly inflationary period when wages are adjusted from time to time to meet the external consequences of something

over which miners, redundant or otherwise, have no control. The House should be concerned at present about protecting redundant miners from any erosion of their standard of life as a result of these changes.
A man who has his benefit fixed according to the scheme prepared in 1968 has a payment frozen for all time, more or less. So long as he is entitled under the scheme he shall not have a review of the kind which we are seeking. A man whose wife dies during the period of his redundancy payment, has his unemployment benefit, a substantial part of his income in some eases, reduced by the loss of the dependant's allowance. But there is no adjustment, by the redundancy payments scheme, to compensate the man for the difference between the loss of the dependant's allowances and any adjustment of income tax which would have taken place in his earnings had he been a single man before he became redundant.
These matters ought to be much more relevant. A week is a long time in politics, but three years is a long time in a redundant miner's life. These matters ought to be very carefully considered under any scheme which the Minister intends to introduce.
Under the old Workmen's Compensation Act, and to some degree under the Industrial Injuries Act, there was the concept of what were known as notional earnings. In other words, we could argue for a man's pre-accident earnings, upon which his compensation was based, on the ground that his notional earnings would have been a certain sum at a certain point. The old Workmen's Compensation Act, 1911, enabled such a review to take place. Unfortunately, we have neglected to incorporate such a provision in the legislation governing the scheme which the Minister is now concerned with.
I would not say that the extravagance of the previous Government in operating the scheme was proverbial. I thought that the previous Government were too narrow. The Minister now has an opportunity to take cognisance of the gross deficiency in the Bill.
If a redundant miner feels able to do a job, if he seeks and obtains such a job, and if he then finds at age 58 or 59


that his physical capacity is not what he thought that it was, so that after three months in the job he must relinquish it, there is no provision that the period of his entitlement to benefit will be extended by the amount of time for which he was not chargeable to the scheme. The Government should take this into consideration so as to give men the opportunity to chance their arm and take on jobs which they think they are physically capable of doing but later find that they are not.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The £24 million which has been allocated is not referred to in the Amendment. That enhanced sum was allocated for use under the Clause to take account of the inflation which has occurred since the previous Bill was before the House. That Bill contained the figure of £22 million. If the Minister accepts, as he does accept, that it was necessary to increase the amount by £2 million to take account of the intervening inflation, he is conceding the point of the Amendment.
What the Government were not aware of, although they have mentioned it many times in other debates, was the fact that inflation would soar at an even greater rate. That inflation is already penalising the many thousands of redundant mineworkers over the age of 55 who benefit from the scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley)—an adjacent constituency to mine—knows a good deal about the parallels that can be drawn between pre-accident earnings and post-accident earnings in calculations for special hardship and disablement pension scheme. There are examples where the Coal Board recognises that a man's ability to earn is impaired when he becomes disabled and must, as a consequence move to a job which is less well paid. This is another factor which must be borne in mind in seeking to make these payments reasonably proof against inflation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has recently had a case where it has worked in the exact opposite way. A man who came into the ambit of the scheme in 1967 had to pay back to the Board about £78 to take account of the 5 per cent. interest rate.

Therefore, not only is it the case that most of the beneficiaries have been subjected to massive inflation which is reducing the value of their 90 per cent. payments, payments which in some cases are as low as 60 per cent. It is also the case that some men must pay part of their awards back as a result of having taken advantage of the scheme in 1967.
On Second Reading the Minister made it clear that the figure was being increased to £24 million to take account of inflation. He must take account of the roaring inflation that now abounds and accept the Amendment, which will go some way towards ensuring that these 20,000 redundant miners and any miners who may be made redundant in future get real value and not sums which are greatly eroded.

Mr. Thomas Swain: This is one of the most important Amendments which has been tabled to the Bill. I want to quote the comparison between the day wage earner and the contract wage earner—or the higher wage earner, as he is now described, as contracts no longer exist in the calculation of wages. If a man finished work on 31st October last as a day wage earner, his redundancy pay calculations will be made on the basis of the previous year's earnings. On 1st November day wage earners received an increase of £3 per week, which was scaled down strictly in accordance with the amount of money that men earned on the higher rates of pay. Some men received only about 16s. of the £3.
The two examples I shall use are, first, the redundant day wage earner and, second, the redundant contract wage earner. The take-home for a contract wage earner whose earnings were £18 a week would be £16 a week under the scheme. If the Amendment is not accepted, the day wage earner will fall farther behind, not only in wage calculations, but also in redundancy pay calculations.
I ask the Minister seriously to consider this matter. The mining industry has been a golden example in wage negotiations and has made valiant attempts to narrow the gap between day wage earners and contract wage earners. The differential which now exists and which was narrowed by the last wage negotiations and which will be narrowed in the next


negotiations should be taken into consideration. The Minister, in his discussions with the National Union of Mineworkers, should pay serious attention to this matter of escalation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley).
In my constituency six pits have been closed since the 1967 Act came into operation, which has meant that a high percentage of men in the 55–65 age group are receiving redundancy pay. The benefits of a man who finished work at the age of 55—which was inevitable under the circumstances because of the mass closures during that period—would expire when he was only 58. This is really a tragedy, because if his benefits expire at 58 in an area like that at the southern end of my constituency, where we have a 10 per cent. unemployment problem among the male population, the possibilities of that individual getting a job in that area outside the mining industry are zero, to say the least; and there are no pits left on the perimeter of Clay Cross, so again the possibility of getting a job back in the industry in that area is zero.
It is vitally important, therefore, that the Minister should give this very important Amendment some consideration and give those of us on this side of the House to understand that he will look at it with sympathy, in the interests of fair play and of the men who have been made redundant and will in turn be made redundant; because whatever may be the situation regarding coal, oil or other fuels in the country today, there will inevitably be pit closures arising from exhaustions. There may be no pit closures arising on economic grounds, but where reserves have been exhausted there will have to be pit closures with a consequential number of redundancies in the particular areas where those take place.
It is, therefore, of vital importance not only to those at present on the list but also for those who will have to be on it in the not-too-distant future. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us today that he has given this Amendment some consideration and can give us an affirmative answer.

4.30 p.m.

Sir G. Nabarro: In the first debate on the first sitting of the Committee stage of this Bill upstairs an Amendment was moved not dissimilar in principle; because

were this Amendment accepted this afternoon it would add to the costs of the National Coal Board which would, of course, be obliged to increase still further the price of its products. I said in Committee upstairs in my very first speech that the fixation of hon. Members opposite sitting for mining constituencies is the productive interest; that they never, never mention the interests of the consumer. We on this side of the House represent not only coal-mining constituencies. I correct the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). They are not minor exceptions, they are realities.

Mr. John Golding: Where are they?

Sir G. Nabarro: I expect they have gone for a cup of tea. I might point to the fact that there are 250 Labour Members missing this afternoon from the benches opposite. We all know that we have duties outside this Chamber, but there are important coalmining constituencies occupied by Tory Members today. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Golding: Where is he?

Sir G. Nabarro: —includes within his constituency boundaries the Betteshanger collieries. My hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Golding: Where is he?

Sir G. Nabarro: —is a splendid successor to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, now in another place.

An Hon. Member: What about the Amendment?

Sir G. Nabarro: And my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) who, when he tipped out the former Member, registered the biggest changeover in vote ever—these are passing points.

Mr. John Mendelson: A point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairman. There are, as you will know, a number of hon. Members who represent many miners in this House who were not able to be members of the Standing Committee because there has to be a limited


number. They are naturally very keen to hear a serious debate on this Amendment and I suggest, with respect, that all these comments are completely out of order and deprive us of the time we need to discuss a serious Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Chair, who is listening very carefully.

Sir G. Nabarro: Far be it from me to be protected by a lady, but I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as always. As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted, the greatest turnover of votes in the country was in Cannock, a mining constituency, now occupied with great distinction by the present incumbent of the office. All of us represent large numbers of consumers of coal and the point I am endeavouring to make is a repetition of what I said in Committee upstairs, but to a larger audience today on the Floor of the House: if these Amendments were accepted the cost of mining coal would be thereby increased and the National Coal Board would perforce be required to advance the price of coal on the market. The price of coal is already exorbitant.

Mr. Swain: rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: I will give way in a moment when I have finished this paragraph. The price of coal is already exorbitant and I had to put a Labour Member representing a coal mining area in his place a few weeks ago when I said that solid fuel for cooking purposes in my own village costs £23·50 a ton. I was outstripped by a lady resident locally who pointed out that she was paying £25·50 a ton for processed solid fuel for cooking purposes.

Mr. Joseph Harper: Ah! Processed fuel.

Sir G. Nabarro: I will give the pithead price to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) who in his usual incarnation is a Whip and therefore silent; but I am glad to have him intervening today. It is nice to join issue with him again on a coal-mining debate, for I have been doing so for the last 18 years. The pithead price is about £17·50 but the price is exorbitant.

Mr. Swain: Has the hon. Gentleman finished his paragraph?

Sir G. Nabarro: I am getting towards the end of the column.

Mr. Kelley: A point of order. Would the hon. Gentleman for Worcestershire, South try to give the House information as to the amount of increase in the price of coal which would result from the Amendment which is being discussed at this moment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point in the argument, not a point of order.

Sir G. Nabarro: These irrelevant, bogus points of order really are to be deprecated as a waste of time.

Mr. Swain: Bogus points of order for a bogus hon. Member.

Sir G. Nabarro: The exorbitant price of coal today is pricing coal out of the market and putting coal miners out of jobs. Hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies should get this simple point into their minds, however opaque their minds may he on an issue of this kind: coal is continuously being priced out of the market by the exorbitant figures now demanded by the National Coal Board. I will give the House figures in extenuation of this simple proposition which I have put to hon. Members on all sides of the House as a reality. Between 1950 and 1970, a brief period of 20 years, the output of coal in this country has dropped from—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Michael Foot: A point of order. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and the Chair will agree that it is perfectly proper to discuss all the matters the hon. Gentleman is raising on the Third Reading of the Bill or some other occasion. But if we are to discuss on this Amendment, which is concerned with redundancy payments to miners, the figures of the price and production of coal and the general state of the industry, I do suggest it will make our proceedings somewhat disorderly; so I invite you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule that it would be better for the hon. Gentleman to reserve his remarks until the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chair will


rule when he or she thinks fit. I do think that the hon. Member was coming to some link between is reasoning and the Amendment. I trust that my belief will be substantiated.

Sir G. Nabarro: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am demonstrating that this Amendment will lead to an increase in the price of coal and because of that it is furthering the disastrous trend manifest in the output of coal in the last 20 years. This is a perfectly valid proposition to which all men of intelligence should lend their ears. In 20 years the output of coal in this country has dropped from 216 million tons in 1950 to an output of approximately 140 million tons this year.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. I am in favour of discussing the whole question of the position of the coal industry, but I am in favour of doing it on the parts of the Bill where it would be appropriate and I would submit to you that it would be appropriate on Third Reading or possibly on some other Amendment but not on this one. If we do discuss the whole situation of the coal industry on this Amendment dealing with redundancy payments then the discussion on the Bill will become disorderly and we will not be able to proceed properly. I do suggest that you should rule that the hon. Gentleman should reserve his remarks on the general situation of the industry to some appropriate Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair must judge when the hon. Gentleman is out of order. The hon. Gentleman's argument to date could have led, as I understand it will, to the question of redundancies and consequently to the question of redundancy payments. This would be perfectly in order and I hope that my assumption as to what is in the hon. Gentleman's mind will prove to be correct.

Mr. Keith Stainton: On a point of order. I fail to see the relationship between the redundancy payments scheme and the price of coal. My reading of the Bill is that the financial provisions for the redundancy scheme come direct from the Treasury—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That too is a point of argument, not a point of

order. I hope, as I have said, that the hon. Gentleman will return to the subject of the Amendment.

Sir G. Nabarro: I was about to complete very shortly this comparison. Whereas coal has declined by 70 million tons a year in the short space of 20 years, from 1950 to 1970, oil has increased in terms of coal equivalent from 9 million tons in 1950—

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: On a point of order. Is there not a limit to the number of times that a speech can be repeated in this House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The speech that may have been heard elsewhere is different from the speech being made now on the Floor of the House. I take the hon. Gentleman's point and hope that the hon. Gentleman will sense the feeling of the House and realise that there are many people who want to speak to this Amendment.

Sir G. Nabarro: I propose to complete this sentence which I have been endeavouring to finish for the last ten minutes. Oil consumption has increased from 9 millions tons of coal equivalent in 1950 to 105 millions tons of coal equivalent in 1970. The faster coal goes down the faster oil consumption rises. This is due in large measure to coal pricing itself out of the market. The reason why these Amendments should be rejected is that they add to the cost of mining coal whereas I want to see the costs reduced.

Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman was whispering in the Tea Room that he was leaving at Ten o'clock—an hon. Member heard this in Piccadilly and reported it to the House—and intends to make his long speech now so that it is in the papers tomorrow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is intervening will intervene in accordance with the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. Stainton: On a point of order. I would resubmit my previous point. With the greatest respect, I do not think that it is a matter of argument. It is clearly stated that the source of the funds for the redundancy scheme is the Treasury and the accounts of the National Coal Board are in no wise concerned. I submit that


that is not a point of argument but a matter for a clear Ruling by the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already expressed my view on that.

Mr. Swain: I thank the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South for remaining seated. The hon. Member did give way and I thank him very much.

Sir G. Nabarro: Well, jolly well get on with it!

Mr. Swain: Is he aware that I too represent consumers? In my constituency I have 321,000 consumers and they are not all apple-growers, they are all workers. Along with my hon. Friends I represent consumers. Is he aware that there have been serious discussions and decisions taken in the oil fields of the Middle East—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There have been points of order raised and I do not think that interruptions which wander are helpful.

Sir G. Nabarro: The principle here is that we should not vote for any Amendment which increases the costs of production of the National Coal Board. If this Amendment were accepted production costs would be increased and I therefore invite my hon. and right hon. Friends to reject the Amendment and not to help the oil industry any further, which is what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would be doing by causing his friends to support this Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Harper: I do not want to continue the vaudeville act but I would like to pick up some of the points made during my Second Reading speech in which I referred to the complex formula for fixing redundancy payments. I support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). When a man becomes redundant he is entitled to 90 per cent. take-home pay. For the first two weeks he draws unemployment benefit, which does not attract income tax, plus a supplement from the Board equalling 90 per cent. of his take-home pay.
For the next 26 weeks he draws, under the National Insurance Act brought in by the Labour Government, short-term

benefit with which he gets unemployment benefit plus a rate of supplement equalling 90 per cent. take-home pay. Neither the short-term benefit nor the unemployment benefit attract income tax so that he has no income tax to pay during this period. At the end of 28 weeks the short-term benefit ceases so that the miner is left with the unemployment benefit and the supplement, which reverts back to the rate of the first two weeks—90 per cent. of take-home pay. At the end of the first year the unemployment benefit ceases, short-term benefit having ceased 24 weeks earlier and he is left with a supplement from Coal Board funds of 90 per cent. which attracts income tax. Not only does the real value of the payment fall—and going by the last nine months the mind boggles at how much it will fall in the next three years—but the man has to pay income tax at a time when he is less able to afford to pay it. The miner is therefore penalised twice.
I hope, if the Minister cannot accept the Amendment today, that he will undertake to give serious thought to how we can give the miner a better deal.

Mr. Caerwyn Roderick: I support the Amendment since it concerns many of my constituents. No collieries are open in my constituency and this part of the Bill is vital to my constituents, many of whom, unlike the Chairman of the National Coal Board, have not been offered directorships in other industries.
Like the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), I too represent consumers. The consumers I represent live near redundant miners and would not wish to have cheap coal at the expense of these good people. Redundant miners should be able to derive the maximum benefit from the scheme and the redundancy payments should take account of wage awards. Many of my constituents have performed magnificent public service by belonging to public bodies, and this has involved financial loss which affects the calculation of the benefit to which they are entitled. It would be inhuman and against the public interest for further injustices to occur.
I am concerned about men whose payments under the 1967 Act have just ended or are about to end. These men are in the 58 to 65 age group. Everyone will


recognise that they have no hope of other employment, especially those who live in areas with chronic employment shortages, where younger men cannot get work. In Committee the Minister promised to listen to representations for an extension of the period of payment to those in this category. He said in reply to a letter which I wrote to him that this was one of the matters which would be fully considered in consultation with the industry and other departments which have an interest in this.
I want to plead the case for these men and their families as strongly as I can. This is a diminishing category. The numbers are small by national standards, yet in a local context these men form a considerable proportion of the population. Why should these men, who already feel so hopeless because of their premature retirement, also suffer financial indignities which are brought about by no fault of their own?
If no extension of the period of payment can be allowed, the Minister will be responsible for encouraging deceit, because these men will have no alternative but to claim sickness benefit. There would be no difficulty in doctors certifying sickness since, after so many years in mining, the majority of the men are suffering some form of disease. I plead with the Minister when consultations take place to consider an extension of the scheme for those who are over 58.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I wish to say a few words about the men who have been declared redundant. When collieries in my area have been closed, the National Coal Board at the receiving pits did their best to persuade men of between 55 and 65, especially those who were incapable of doing heavy work, to become redundant. If the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) had given a little more thought to what is behind the Amendment he would not have given the performance he gave us this afternoon.
When a miner reaches 55 his earnings have started to drop. By the time he reaches 60, his earnings of the last two or three years have become much lower than they were. Receiving pits want to absorb the younger men from the pits that have been closed and men who have given their working life to the mining

industry are being persuaded to leave and to accept the three years' redundancy payment. Some believe that they will have three years with reasonably good wages, but those who became redundant at 55 and have now reached 58 have found out that not only has the value of the payments decreased but that at 58 they are now out on a limb.
Many of these men are suffering from disease or accidents. There are men with bronchitis and men with emphysema. A greater percentage of men are suffering from these diseases in the mining areas than in the rest of the country. Some may be suffering from pneumoconiosis, but not to such an extent as to entitle them to receive a reasonable income.
The price of coal has no relevance to the Amendment. The money is being granted by the Government and the amount is small. Whatever the cost, whether it be an extra £2 million or £3 million, no one can justifiably say that these men are not entitled to help.
I am disturbed that the man who reaches the end of the three-year period will be thrown on the scrap heap. We are, unfortunately, not getting jobs in our district and these men are not being trained for other work. The least the Government can do is to accept the Amendment and play fair with these men, some of whom drifted back to the industry from the Army after the war. If we are not careful we shall be treating these men unfairly.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I wish to say a few words about the many people who have suffered the fate of becoming redundant in the mining industry. One great problem in my constituency is that of the calculator, and the Minister should have a serious look at this when he formulates his new scheme.
In determining the amount of take-home pay, a man must first put himself to a test. His wages for the previous income tax year are divided by the number of weeks he has worked. If a man has pneumoconiosis and continues to work but loses one or two days in some weeks, those incomplete weeks are counted as full weeks. On the other hand, if a man is out with an injury for six or eight full weeks the calculator is reduced by that amount. This has a bad effect


on the man who is struggling and perhaps loses one or two days of work a week. I hope that the Minister will take a serious look at this problem.
5.0 p.m.
There are one or two other matters which the Minister might consider favourably. It must be remembered that over the years many men in the mining industry have had a long record of public service; many serve on local authorities and some as lay magistrates. In some instances this means that they lose wages in the public interest which, in the final result, affects the number of weeks worked. For example, when somebody in the mining industry becomes chairman of a local authority during that period of office he may not do much work in the industry. The net result is that when an assessment is made there is little take-home pay for that period. Again the Minister should give this matter serious consideration.
There is a further matter I wish to raise on the Amendment. When a pit closes, although the mass of the people may become instantly redundant, 30 or 40 men may remain at the colliery for a period of 6, 9 or 12 months to undertake salvage work at reduced rates of pay. Although originally they may have been power-loading workers earning top rates in the industry, their take-home pay would have to be calculated on the reduced payments during the nine months or so as salvage workers. This is an injustice to those men who are asked to do a necessary job for the Coal Board. The Board has found it difficult to get men to do salvage work on many of these faces because they would rather get away from the pit and get higher pay elsewhere.
Reference has already been made by my hon. Friends to the difficulties which face men when the three-year period comes to an end. Many men of 58, 59 or 60, who for many years have had a good take-home pay, will suddenly face having to live on social security benefits. It will be a great hardship to those men. Would the Minister consider in some of these cases extending the Period concerned? The Amendment refers to a person not being disqualified if any employment does not exceed six months'

duration and it would be of advantage to extend the period concerned. I hope that this situation will be looked at by the Minister.
We should consider why the scheme was introduced in 1967 in the first place. The reasons are clearly set out in the Act, namely, to form a cushion for people who became redundant as a result of colliery closures where no employment is available. If it was right in 1967 to take such action, is it not even more right now, having regard to the situation in South Wales where unemployment is now three times what it was when that legislation was produced and when work opportunities are now far less than they were? Therefore, the matter should be looked at again and the Minister should go ahead with this scheme as quickly as possible.
I asked the Minister in Committee not to wait the full twelve months before making a review if in the meantime he could bring forward a scheme within an earlier period. This is of great importance. Certainly the unions are very concerned that the Minister should not wait twelve months from March, 1971, to March, 1972, but should introduce a scheme far earlier.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I should like to make one point in regard to the second subsection of the Amendment. At present the Government appears to be moving towards a change in the system of regional policy away from grants and towards a change in infrastructure, and so on. This means that in the development and intermediate areas there will be many jobs of short duration, work on new roads, derelict sites, and so on. If this occurs there will be some employment opportunities for redundant miners, but only in the short term—perhaps for three, four, five or six months. If the Minister does not accept the Amendment he will virtually be telling those men that they cannot work and will not be able to make the contribution which they so desperately want to make. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment to enable those men to make the contribution that the nation requires of them.

Mr. Stainton: I should like to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for


Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and anybody else who suggests that this discussion is anything to do with the price of coal. We are here talking about funds from the Treasury. We could go into arguments about inflationary effects which would ultimately be related to the price of coal, but such arguments are irrelevant. The Coal Board in the past few years has been faced with the critical problem of closures and it is to that situation the scheme is addressed. The profitability to the Coal Board does not come into the matter at all. What we are concerned with is the operating efficiency of the Board. We should be well advised to keep the two matters distinct and separate.
The penalties of inflation are by no means peculiar to redundant miners. They abound in the constituency of Sudbury and Woodbridge, just as they do in Worcestershire, South and elsewhere in the country. It is a terrifying situation. Since the miners are not unique in this situation, I would find it difficult to support the first part of the Amendment.
Reference was made to the basic calculator which refers to the various Statutory Instruments. I am sometimes somewhat bewildered—and perhaps my hon. Friend could take up this query—about how the weekly basic benefits have been computed in terms of the amount of pre-redundancy earnings.
Taking various levels, at £14 13s. 4d. to £15, the weekly benefit is £4 2s. On a rough reckoning, that is 27 per cent. At £19 13s. 4d. to £20, the weekly benefit is £7 11s., which is 38 per cent. Further up the scale, at £24 13s. 4d. to £25, the weekly benefit is £10 16s., or 44 per cent. of the basic benefit.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps I may assist the hon. Gentleman. The reason why he is able to produce these kinds of figures is that, in the total attributed to each miner, one has to take into account the amount that he would otherwise receive in unemployment benefit. My point was that, when we talk about 60 per cent., we are discussing the single man who does not claim any dependants' allowances. A man with a wife would get £8 2s., plus the amount that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. It is a theoretical 90 per cent. However, in the case of single men it can be as low as 60 per cent.

Mr. Stainton: I accept that; indeed, it is self-evident. But it is supplementary to my basic argument.
I come back to the figures for individuals. At the top of the scale, at £29 13s. 4d. to £30, the benefit is £14 a week, or 47 per cent.
These payments should be kept apart from the additional supplementary benefits, which are spelt out at great length. I have been at pains to have discussions with hon. Gentlemen opposite about how this works out in practice. The point is that, irrespective of the supplementary benefits, in terms of inflation, curiously enough the better-paid have a better percentage relationship and, therefore, a better hedge against inflation. Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at this point within the overall context.
It was significant that, in moving the Amendment, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) did not attribute a cost to it. The arithmetic is not too difficult. Various assumptions can be made about the rate of inflation and the numbers benefiting from the scheme. In addition, the outgoings are known. I am surprised that he shied away from any attempt to estimate the cost of the Amendment.
Redundancy is not a unique problem to miners. However, there may be an element in the basic calculator situation to which attention can be given. It is immune from the other point made by the hon. Gentleman, which I accept.
I find the second part of the Amendment highly commendable, and I look forward with critical expectancy to my hon. Friend's remarks on it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: It would be a pity to miss the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) on his temperate and wise remarks. They contrasted strongly with the intemperate irrelevance of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) in his comments on the Amendment.
Perhaps I might enter a plea in support of the case put forward in passing by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) about the problems of


public servants such as local councillors, county councillors and lay magistrates who probably amount to hundreds if not thousands of Coal Board employees and who currently, because of the existing redundancy payments scheme, pay what is in effect a fine on social conscience. I know of two cases in my constituency of men whose redundancy pay has been reduced by as much as £200 because they have been heavily engaged in public service in the latter years of their working lives. It is time that we started to pay attention to the fact that we have unpaid, voluntary, selfless people engaged in local government and other voluntary activities.
The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge pointed out that the coal industry is not unique in this respect. However, I doubt whether he would care to take his attitude to its logical conclusion and support the dog in the manger case that, because this condition affects people in other industries, the redundant miner who has subscribed to the welfare of our society by being a voluntary local representative should be fined for his sense of public service.
I hope that the Minister will take full account of the importance of the first part of the Amendment and exercise what compassion and common sense he has. Without any real additional cost, due reward can be given to those who have done so much for the communities which they serve.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): I accept that this is an extremely serious Amendment. It would affect considerable numbers of people. I agree with the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) that we should bear in mind the people whom we are discussing and the circumstances in which they might find themselves.
I am sure that the House will recognise that it is not possible for me to accept the Amendment. It would seek to prescribe in a detailed form certain aspects of the scheme which will come under review. When it comes to be devised, the new redundancy payments scheme will have to take account of the points which have been put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite in support of the Amendment, as well as a number of other matters. It would be wrong to deal in

isolation with any one of them, however strongly it might merit special attention, in advance of the comprehensive review which it to take place as soon as this Measure is on the Statute Book. These are points which will be considered during the preparation of the new proposals for the remainder of the period to March, 1974.
If I might take up the point made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), in saying that I cannot accept the Amendment I do not mean that there is no hope for the future. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to imply that. It is important to make it clear that the review will be entirely objective and must take into account the considerations which hon. Gentlemen opposite have advanced as well as other factors which have been and will be brought to my attention by the National Union of Mineworkers and others whom I am pledged to consult.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful for that assurance, and I look forward to reading the new scheme with considerable interest.

Mr. Kelley: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he also undertake to consider the kind of case that I put forward earlier where a man thinks that he may be able to do a job but discovers that, because of advancing years and certain physical disabilities, he cannot continue in that employment? Will a man in that position be entitled to have his case reviewed, and will it be posible to extend the period of 156 weeks so as to meet the period when such a man was trying to do an honest job of work?

Sir J. Eden: I certainly shall not exclude anything from the review. I shall take into account every point which has been put forward in the debate as well as those points which are brought to my attention in any other form of communication. I shall also study the record of the debate. However, I must emphasise that I cannot commit either the Government or myself to adopt any particular proposal which has been advanced. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite recognise that.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), talking about the philosophy behind the scheme, said that it was to see


how far it might be possible to compensate the men for loss of expected earnings. I agree that, up to a point, that was the case. But the reference by the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) to the provision of some kind of cushion was an accurate description of the intention which lay behind the preparation of the original scheme.
The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), in the debate on the Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Order, said:
We are, therefore, preparing a scheme whereby mineworkers who become redundant and have to leave the industry at or after the age of 55 will have their income supplemented by the Board for a period so that they can adjust themselves to their new circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1967; Vol. 750, c. 1872.]
That was the purpose of the scheme. It was conceived as a scheme of short-term duration designed to assist eligible men affected, for the purposes of the scheme, to adjust themselves to their new circumstances. I shall certainly bear that aspect in mind.
The first part of the Amendment is the dynamic part. It is an attempt to provide some built-in hedge against inflation. This has been attempted in other retirement schemes of various kinds. It has never been possible to find a suitable formula. This is one aspect which will have to be looked at. Obviously the wish of the House would be to bring inflation under control. This must be the primary objective of all hon. Members.

Mr. Stainton: Whilst not dissenting from that view, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Report of the Government's Actuary-General in which, in reviewing all pensions schemes, he points out that over 30 per cent. have an in-built hedge against inflation?

Sir J. Eden: I agree. The dynamic element has a great deal of attraction and there are many ways in which it can be provided. Whether it can be adapted to suit the purposes of this scheme I do not know. However, I shall certainly study that aspect further in the light of the arguments which have been put forward. The basis of the scheme was to try to find an effective means of cushioning the men for a comparatively short period.
The second part of the Amendment imports other considerations which seek to have regard both to men who temporarily take a job outside the coal milling industry and to the circumstances of those who are now employed within the industry after having been declared redundant.
There are two aspects, although only one is advanced in the Amendment. These matters would fall to be prescribed in the regulations if they were to be adopted. The fact that these matters are not enshrined in the Bill do not, in the first instance, debar their proper consideration and, if accepted, certainly would not debar their inclusion in the scheme. That is the procedure—a sensible procedure—which was followed in the original preparation of the scheme. It provides for maximum flexibility and enables all the aspects of the changing economic circumstances and the environment in which redundancies take place to be taken fully into account.
I turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). These are complex matters. The exact formulae adopted and prescribed for are set out in the regulations which govern the method of payment now and its relationship to the original pay.
The aim is to maintain the income of a married miner at about 90 per cent. of his pre-redundancy take-home pay with a somewhat lower percentage for unmarried miners. These percentages are now somewhat higher since basic unemployment benefit was raised in November, 1969.
As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, a number of factors can affect a particular individual's payment under the scheme. The amount of supplementation is in any case offset by certain State benefits, including the earnings-related supplement, and also by certain coal industry benefits which become payable in the event of redundancy These matters are prescribed for in the regulations.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The Minister will be aware that the Bill is not intended to fight inflationary tendencies. What the hon. Gentleman said about having to keep inflation under review all the time would be wrong in


principle if applied to the Bill. I do not know whether the Government intend to use the Bill as an anti-inflationary measure, but I believe that it is wrong to apply this principle to some of the poorest people in the community.

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is distorting what I said. I am merely emphasising that the purpose of any new scheme is to provide a realistic cushion for the men who become eligible for benefits under the scheme. That is no different from the intention which lay behind the preparation of the original scheme. When reviewing the nature of the scheme as it now exists I shall take account of the changed circumstances which may affect the men and also any representations made to me either inside or outside this House.

Mr. Skinner: May I ask the Minister to take account of a further point which has not yet been mentioned? We have talked about all kinds of pensions, but there is the question of the disregard. According to a Question which I put down, this has fallen in value since November, 1966, just prior to the introduction of the 1967 Act, by 8s. out of the 40s., irrespective of the disregard. Will the Minister also take that into account?

Sir J. Eden: I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that he and I and other hon. Members could list a considerable number of factors which must be taken into account. This is why I cannot advise the House to accept these Amendments.

Mr. Varley: There have been some powerful pleas from this side of the House and some up-to-date and expert knowledge of how the scheme has operated. We are grateful for what we take to be the Minister's firm assurance that the points raised will be considered in the review. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 46, at end insert:
() In any redundancy scheme made by the Secretary of State under this section there

shall be included a requirement that the rent on a house owned by the National Coal Board and occupied by a person benefiting from such a scheme shall not be increased.
I do not want to go over the arguments already pursued about the scheme itself, but, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, a man of 55 or over who is made redundant has basically 90 per cent. of his take-home pay for three years, or until he is 65, whichever is the shorter period. So for three years, his take-home pay remains virtually static, while at this time, as pointed out on the previous Amendments, inflation has begun to roar ahead.
In my constituency, the rates are going up by 15p in the £, and in addition there are the higher rents this year and the increase due to Government policy which will take place next year. The Board's policy on rents for its own houses is in future to be determined by the new rent regulations. But the older miners who live in the older type of National Coal Board houses and depend on the district in which they work and live, rightly thought that the house was part of the job.
The wages received and the rents charged for the houses were to some extent interdependent. When the mining industry was nationalised in 1947, the Board inherited a large stock of houses built by the collieries themselves to rent to the miners. They built houses as the only way in which they could obtain labour when pits were opened up in previously rural areas. They took into consideration the fact that it was cheaper to provide the houses at low rents—sometimes rent-free—instead of paying the men a worthwhile wage to cover the payment of rents.
But in future, with the so-called fair rents policy of the Board, the rents will be increased at a very fast rate. However, to avoid hardship—some of the fair rent assessments around Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire mean that some rents have increased by 200 or 300 per cent.—the Board has said that it will not apply this all at one go but will limit it to 7s. 6d. per week per year.
For those miners who are made redundant and who are living in Coal Board houses, the effect of this on their 90 per cent. and all the other costs over the next three years will be that, by the end


of that time, the 90 per cent. will have shrunk tremendously in value.
The Amendment seeks to cushion the effect of one aspect of the rise in prices which they and we can expect over the next three years—that those in this position who benefit from the redundancy scheme should not have their rents increased while under the terms of the scheme. We should remember that those men who have given their lives and health to the mining industry and the nation would be receiving a very small token if the Minister would accept this modest Amendment.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The proposal in this Amendment, like that in the previous Amendment, will attract a good deal of sympathetic support from both sides. I want to question one aspect of it. I believe that only a minority of the miners concerned live in houses of this kind. I believe that the figure is only about a quarter. Presumably the proportion of those who are redundant would also be a minority of the total number redundant at any particular time.
Therefore, obviously, if this were embodied in an Order, there would to some extent be a different consequence for those who were living in houses like this and those who were not. This is not a fatal objection, but I imagine that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Con-cannon) would concede the point. However, I do not say that much would be gained by refusing this principle.
If the rent were suddenly to be pushed up at a time when a person was redundant, in most cases I suppose the extra rent would still come from public funds, from another source. Presumably the person concerned would receive increased supplementary benefit to pay for any additional rent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am posing this as a possibility: I do not say that it would be so in all cases, but it might be in some cases. However, this is another instance of something which it is very difficult to include in the Bill.
If I understood my hon. Friend's answer to the last Amendment, this also is appropriate for the consideration which would go to the formulation of the Order. I hope that he will give an assurance that this is another consideration which he will bear in mind in framing the Order.

Mr. Kelley: This Amendment should be thrown out without a great deal of trouble. It has sympathy but is lacking in wisdom. The people who occupy National Coal Board houses have their rents subsidised to some degree by the industry. If we are to take seriously the Minister's admissions on the previous Amendment, about this thing called "dynamism"—I saw his eyes light up with interest when he used this term—that would take care of this situation.
People who were receiving 90 per cent. of their take-home pay in real terms would have rents subsidised by people who had to go to work every day, getting up at five or six o'clock in the morning to go and "wrestle with the black man", as we used to call it. That is ridiculous. We should rely simply on the principle of dynamism.
I believe that the Minister was perfectly honest in what he said. Where benefits would be adjusted according to influence in the wages system, that should take care of the kind of thing which the Amendment is designed to give. I think that it should be rejected without much trouble.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley), I consider that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has done a service in drawing attention to this matter, which is particularly pertinent to redundant miners.
The Minister has some responsibility for fuel and power. He cannot deny that in mining localities there has been a great deal of indignation about N.C.B. rents. This has arisen particularly when miners have become redundant and have been induced to move from N.C.B.-owned houses to other accommodation and have found themselves paying more rent because, for example, they have come under the jurisdiction of the fair rent machinery. As there is only a faint possibility of some of these miners ever gaining employment again, they should not be persuaded to move to alternative accommodation if they are likely to be asked to pay more rent.

Mr. Kelley: I admit that there is something in this case and that where a man's benefit under the scheme have ceased after 156 weeks, arrangements


should be made, perhaps in an agreement between the N.U.M. and the N.C.B., to ensure that violent increases in rent do not occur. However, that has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend has anticipated me, though I trust that he appreciates that what is and what is not in order is a matter for the Chair and not for him.
For some redundant miners, employment prospects are remote. I have had to live with this problem in my constituency for some time and I assure the Minister that miners have discovered that on moving they have had to pay higher rents. We must ensure that because a man becomes redundant he is not asked to pay increased rents for the rest of his life. The Minister has been conciliatory in his remarks so far and has expressed a willingness to examine the matters which we have raised. I trust that he will examine this question of N.C.B. rents.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Swain: This is a very important subject and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Con-cannon) on enabling us to discuss it. It is inevitable that we should consider an Amendment of this kind strictly in relation to the areas we represent, though while some hon. Members who represent mining constituencies are greatly affected by redundancies in this context, others are not. This is the difference between us. It is not a difference of principle but one of emphasis.
In the area in which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and I live, the N.C.B. has a number of housing undertakings. The Board owns, among others, Arkwright, Netherthorpe Estate, Poolsbrook, Martington, part of Brimington, part of North Wingfield, part of Derishaw and part of Fillamarsh. At present I am dealing with the local Rent Assessment Committee at the appeal level concerning the North Wingfield estate, which comprises 230 houses. Twenty-nine occupants there were over 55 but under 65 when the William Thorpe pit closed in March of last year, and as a result became beneficiaries under the old scheme. Their properties are now being dealt with by the Rent Assessment Committee,

the rent officer stage having been completed and a recommendation that they be put on a fair rent basis having been made. [Interruption.]
May I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call for order? At present the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is conducting a conversation in undertones with the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder).

Sir G. Nabarro: Sotto voce.

Mr. Swain: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is making one of his rare speeches that will not be reported in the Press.
In reply to questions from me, I was informed by the rent officer that my constituents would not receive the benefits to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield referred—of rent increases up to the limit of 7s. 6d. per week. If, in his wisdom, the rent officer fixes a rent of 10s., that will be 30s. over three years and those who have become redundant will not be able to afford this. They will be asked to pay the full economic rent, which will be their present rent plus 10s. [Interruption.]
Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask you please to ask the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South to stop showing his ignorance. His conversation with his hon. and learned Friend is now proceeding at a volume which must be attracting your attention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I am listening with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) and I am able to hear him. In other words, the noise of which he complains is not percolating to this end of the Chamber. I suggest that if he pays no attention to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), the rest of the House will pay no attention to him either.

Mr. Swain: Perhaps the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South considers that one of the benefits of being an hon. Member is the fact that one is able to listen to one's own voice but not to anybody else's.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: rose—

Mr. Swain: The hon. and learned Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should leave this matter. The hon. Gentleman has a most important point to make, and he should be allowed to make it quietly. I ask him not to be diverted by other hon. Members.

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Swain: How can I help but be diverted by the rumblings of old Rumble-guts?

Mr. Crowder: I do apologise if I were having a word with my hon. Friend—

Sir G. Nabarro: It was on South African arms.

Mr. Crowder: "Rumbleguts" is an expression that is perhaps a little unkind. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. If he spoke up, perhaps we should hear what he is saying.

Mr. Swain: If the hon. and learned Gentleman would keep his mouth shut, other people would hear what I am saying.
The unfortunate people who have been made redundant will no longer enjoy the benefit of the subsidy which has been enjoyed and will continue to be enjoyed by those who continue in the Board's employment. They are suffering a double penalty—a reduction in their total income per week and an increase in their rents of up to 10s. a week, or its equivalent in new pence.

Mr. Kelley: I have lived in the same house in a colliery village as that in which I went to live in 37 years ago, when I went to Yorkshire, and no case has been brought to my notice of the rent of a redundant miner having been increased because he has ceased to be employed by the National Coal Board. Does my hon. Friend believe that a person who is redundant on 90 per cent. of his previous earnings for the 156 weeks—I am not talking about afterwards—should be subsidised by someone who has to go to work every day to get 100 per cent.?

Mr. Swain: That is rather a tragic statement coming from my hon. Friend, whom I respect as much as any hon. Member and who is a very dear friend

of mine. When all is said and done, those miners who have been declared redundant are very unfortunate people. The Bill deals with the men who are made redundant as a result of pit closures in their areas.
The Amendment has been called by the Chair. Therefore, it is strictly in order. It is framed with the specific purpose of bringing to the notice of the House and the country that these circumstances apply in the case of redundant miners. In my area I am dealing with appeals to the rent assessment committee concerning four estates and it has already been pointed out very vividly to me by the rent officer that these circumstances will apply.

Mr. Kelley: Does my hon. Friend mean that they apply only to redundant miners or to all the occupants of the houses belonging to the National Coal Board?

Mr. Swain: If my hon. Friend had been listening as attentively as he nearly always does he would have heard what I said. I said that it applied to redundant miners. The application for the houses to be put on a fair rent basis is for all the property owned by the National Coal Board, but the redundant miners who occupy some of the houses will not continue to receive the subsidy they enjoyed whilst they were employed. I do not think that I could be clearer than that. I am not being disrespectful to my hon. Friend. I am merely pointing out that those miners will suffer a reduction in their income through no fault of their own, and then, as a result of someone else's machinations beyond their control, will suffer a rent increase greater than that of the people who continue in work. That is a very valid point.
I hope that the Minister will look at the Amendment sympathetically and consider its implications. I appreciate that it may be very difficult to incorporate it in the Bill, with the result that it may have to be dealt with as a separate entity. I appreciate all the difficulties. But I want it to be on record that the increased rent is one of the penalties the poor unfortunate victims of the rundown of the mining industry have to suffer.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) has made a most important point


about some of the problems he faces in his constituency. I live in it, and know only too well how true is what my hon. Friend says about those who have left the industry.
There is another problem, associated with the means test philosophy. The people whom the Amendment concerns fall outside the range of supplementary benefits as a result of receiving a theoretical 90 per cent. of their former take-home pay. I do not totally agree with the means test system, but the fact is that we have it. There is to be another benefit called the family income supplement. The people we are discussing will not qualify for that either. The bulk of the redundant miners we are talking about receive between £12 and £16 per week, and they fall outside the supplementary benefit scheme. Therefore, any additional increase of rent as a result of the withdrawal of the £4 million subsidy by the National Coal Board two years ago, the effect of which is now permeating throughout the rows of terraced houses owned by the Board, cannot be recovered by those miners in our means-tested society.
Although I do not applaud the fact that this is necessary, a married couple with an income of only £8 2s., because the man retired normally at the age of 65, will have their rent paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Redundant miners, because they are in the £14 to £16 range, fall outside that category and so feel the full weight of the withdrawal of the £4 million subsidy. That is the main point.
What my hon. Friend said about the problem of the North Wingfield Estate is absolutely correct. I have dealt with a similar case in my constituency in the Cann Vale Model Village, and there will be another similar case in the Cresswell Model Village. These are matters for the Minister to take into account.

Mr. Mark Hughes: In the South Durham area it appears that out of a stock of 9,500 houses owned by the National Coal Board only about 250 are occupied by redundant miners. During the period from 1967 to 1970 about 3,200 miners were made redundant within that area, so the number of redundant miners who remain in N.C.B. houses in the South

Durham area is a very small fraction of the total. As long as they are in receipt of statutory make-up pay, their rents are not referred to the county rent officer. Thus, de facto, what is suggested in the Amendment is operating in the South Durham area at this time.
This brings with it, however, the difficulty that, when they cease to be in receipt of the three years' 90 per cent. pay, at that moment, precisely when their income comes down, their rent goes up. Therefore, in framing any Schedule under the Bill, I invite the Minister to look at this sort of problem. I suspect that South Durham may be different from other areas in the way it has operated its letting policy for houses for redundant miners, but, as I understand it, if they move directly from being on redundancy make-up pay on to full retirement pensions, they escape the rent officer, but if they are retired at, say, 61, and then go on to supplementary benefit at 64, even though it is only for a year, their rent level is referred to the rent officer. It is this sort of anomaly which, in following up the Amendment, the Minister should look at very closely.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Arbitration has run into some difficulties generally over recent weeks and I would not wish to arbitrate between my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) and Don Valley (Mr. Kelley). That would be an extremely difficult operation for anyone to embark on, certainly if we wish to make full progress with the Bill.
As I understand the situation, these matters are covered by Article 5(2) of the Scheme that has hitherto been in operation, and no doubt that part of it will be examined by the Minister when he discusses the matter with the N.U.M. Under that Scheme, additional benefit is payable in respect of rent increases consequent upon a man leaving the Board's employment. But I hope that, just as he gave an undertaking that he would discuss the previous matters which were raised with the N.U.M. when he came to work out further schemes, the hon. Gentleman will take full account of the representations which have been made on this Amendment. On that basis, I hope that we shall be able to proceed.

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) made it clear that the purpose of the Amendment was to try to ensure that, for a mineworker eligible for payment under this redundancy scheme who is also a tenant of a National Coal Board house, rent shall not be increased. Perhaps it might help the House if I gave a short survey of the existing position.
As has been shown by a number of hon. Members, many mineworkers live in N.C.B. houses now either rent-free or at nominal rents. If one of these men becomes redundant, it is often possible for him to continue to live in the same house. But as he is then no longer in the Board's employ, the Board can increase his rent or charge him a rent if he has previously paid none.
Both the Board and the N.U.M. have approached the Department on this matter and it is certainly one of the aspects which will be brought into the general consideration provided for under the review procedure. For the present, the maximum increase of rent in N.C.B. houses is being limited to 37½p. per week for mining, or 50p. per week for non-mining, tenants. The effect of the Amendment would be to guarantee beneficiaries under the Scheme no increase in rent for the duration of the benefit they were getting, so long as they remained in an N.C.B. house throughout that time.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was right when he drew attention to the conditions of the existing regulations which cover this point. Under Article 5(2) of the Redundant Mineworkers' Payments Scheme, a supplementary allowance is provided equal to any increase of rent at the time of redundancy, within a maximum of £1 a week, for so long as the man remains a tenant of the Board in the same house. The present arrangements, therefore, protect beneficiaries against rent increases of up to £1 a week at the time of redundancy, related to continued tenancy of the same N.C.B. house.
If, however, the man moves to another house, whether owned by the Board or not, or if the ownership of his house passes from the Board to someone else because of the expiry of a lease or some other reason, the rent allowance under the Scheme ceases. This is because no present or past employee of the Board has

a right to indefinite enjoyment of a favourable N.C.B. rent, and all who do so at any time do, I think, accept the risk of losing it because the Board finds that it needs the house for another purpose or disposes of the house to another property-owner.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is on a theme which I should have liked to develop. I want to take the example of an old couple moving into another N.C.B. house at the Board's behest and discovering that it is smaller. It is then decontrolled and they find themselves in a serious position. I have had many such cases and I must say that I did not get very sympathetic treatment.

Sir J. Eden: I understand that, and it is one of a number of points which the Board has itself put forward which certainly will be under review. I want to emphasise that the Scheme does not distinguish between the redundant mineworker over 55 who qualifies for benefit and any other present or former workman of the Board in providing for a continuation of a specifically favourable rent beyond the time when the man loses the tenancy of a particular house owned by the Board.
But I am aware—and this is a point raised by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and others—of the fact that a number of men subject to the Scheme have lost a rent allowance because they have had to move house for whatever reason, or because their house has passed out of the Board's ownership, and that this has caused a considerable amount of concern and some complaint. The whole question of the circumstances in which rent allowance should be payable under the Scheme is one of the points which will be reconsidered carefully during the forthcoming review of the arrangements, and I will, of course, bear in mind the observations made during the debate.

Mr. Concannon: I think that the matter has been very well aired, which was the purpose of the Amendment. I am sorry that it has apparently caused some friction between some of my hon. Friends, because we all usually work so very closely together. I am sorry for any misunderstanding there may have been between some of my hon. Friends


and myself. I am glad that the matter has been aired because the Minister now knows some of the problems we face. With his assurance that these matters will be taken into consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

INCREASE OF LIMIT OF BOARD'S ACCUMU LATED DEFICIT AND POWER TO ALTER IT SUBSEQUENTLY BY ORDER

Mr. Concannon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 5, leave out '75' and insert '70'.

The Chairman: It will be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 9, leave out '100' and insert '95'.

Mr. Concannon: Some of my colleagues in the National Union of Mineworkers and elsewhere will think me slightly mad in proposing these Amendments. Possibly my union or the Coal Board will garrot me or shoot me on Monday morning if I am wrong.
The Clause proposes to increase the limit on the accumulated deficit of the National Coal Board to £75 million. Amendment No. 4 proposes to reduce the figure to £70 million. Amendment No. 5 proposes to reduce the amount of £100 million mentioned in subsection (2) to £95 million. I was advised that, in order to get the Amendments on the Notice Paper, I had to propose figures which were less than those in the Bill.
It will not come as a surprise to some of my hon. Friends that I should want to reduce the sums involved. I have had some misgivings, to say the least, about the Clause and, in particular, the Government's thinking about the accumulated deficit of the National Coal Board. I have a basic distrust of Tory Governments. I hope that I am proved wrong. If I am wrong, the Minister will have time to put me right. The Board's accumulated deficit can have effects on the financial considerations of the Board, on mineworkers' wages and on the political implications for the Board.

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Concannon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. The accumulated deficit of the Coal Board at the end of 1970 was £35 million. I am wondering why the Minister wishes to increase the limit to £75 million, with an optional figure of £100 million. Is the purpose to allow the Board to go further into debt so that the Government can force certain policies on it?
During and after the election campaign the Prime Minister said that he proposed to lean on the public industries and would not allow them to increase the price of their products to the consumer. He also said that he would reduce prices "at a stroke". He has failed considerably, but he has refused to allow the Coal Board to increase the price of coal to industry by the amount that it wished to increase it. One of the possible effects of this on the Board is to put it further into debt. Another possible effect is that if the Board does not receive sufficient money for the products of the industry, mineworkers' wages will be depressed.
Next year is what we term parity year in the mining industry and the wages structures in the industry will be brought together. Wages everywhere in the industry will be brought up to the level of those in the Nottingham area. This will involve fairly large wage increases for miners in certain parts of the country. In my area, they will have to mark time or to get cost-of-living increases. There has been a drop in miners' take-home pay in Nottinghamshire in the last five years I hope that nobody expects miners' wages in Nottinghamshire to stand still.
6.15 p.m.
The proposed increase in the limit for the Board's accumulated deficit is only a short-term expedient which will not settle the long-term problems of the industry. But the limit will have to be increased to ensure that there is fair play for the workers in the industry. Until the Government wipe the slate clean and start again, or until we have a Government who are prepared to be honest and to say that it is no longer possible to keep prices down and pay a fair wage comparable with wages paid in the rest of industry, the Government must pay a subsidy for coal instead of hiding behind accumulated deficits and picking up the


hot potato when the deficit reaches large proportions.
The Minister gave an assurance in Committee about Clause 7. Although he said that there was no link between the need for Clause 3 and later provisions, he went on to say that if any misfortune befell later Clauses it would still be necessary to have Clause 3.
I wished to put on record my fears and doubts about the accumulated deficit. What the Government propose is the wrong way to tackle the problem. I know that it gives greater flexibility by one year or possibly longer, but what happens simply is that the accumulated deficit limit is continually increased, and we have to wait for the Government to say, "We will wipe the slate clean and start again". My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) said that he would sooner see adopted the system which is adopted in other countries of paying a subsidy per ton of coal rather than Governments' hiding behind accumulated deficits. I see something sinister in increasing the limit of the deficit.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) talked about the Coal Board receiving £20 or £25 per ton for its coal at the end of 1970. In fact, it was receiving 105s. 2d. per ton, which is nowhere near the figure of £20 or £25 which the hon. Gentleman gave.
I am open to persuasion by the Minister, but I do not give him much of a chance, This matter is one of my hobby horses. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government wish to increase the limit of the Board's accumulated deficit.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am not very impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). Conservative Governments should resist at all times the process which the hon. Gentleman describes as wiping the slate clean. The Labour Government wrote off more than £400 million of accumulated Coal Board losses. The whole of that huge burden had to be borne by the taxpayer.
The present situation is that the Coal Board is losing money. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister: is there any danger in the foreseeable future that the Coal Board will trade at a profit? Is there

any danger of the burden being lifted off the taxpayers' shoulders?
In order that hon. Members opposite may judge the position for themselves, let them refer to the last published Report and Accounts 1969–70 of the National Coal Board, Volume II, Accounts and Statistical Tables, page 46, which records that in the year 1968 to 1969 the Coal Board lost—I repeat, lost—£8·881 million. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not shout from a sedentary position while I am quoting. When I have completed the quotation I will give way.

Mr. Kelley: You have invited me to interrupt.

Sir G. Nabarro: I hope that you will reprove hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, for referring to me as "You" and you as me, which is quite wong. I shall repeat what I said and at the end of the quotation I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. The quotation is that the Coal Board lost, in the year 1968 to 1969, £8·881 million. In the year 1969 to 1970 the Coal Board lost—I repeat, lost—£26·280 million. Then the Board, with its characteristic prescience or optimism—dependent on which side of the House one sits—reported in the Report and Accounts 1969–70, page 11, as follows:
These factors, combined with general inflation, obliged the Board, with the consent of the Government, to raise their prices. The increases came too late in the year, however, to eliminate earlier losses. The Board made an operating profit of £8·8 million but, after making a net charge for interest of £35·1 million (including £37·0 million paid to the Government), there was a deficit of £26·3 million.
I hope that I state the position scrupulously correctly and utterly fairly: that was after interest charges. But, as the Government furnish the capital for the National Coal Board, it is proper that the Board should pay an appropriate rate of interest for their borrowings. No industry, whether publicly or privately owned, should expect to obtain its capital without servicing the capital by way of interest or dividends.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: What about Rolls-Royce?

Sir G. Nabarro: I cannot talk about Rolls-Royce now, but I will happily talk about Rolls-Royce on appropriate occasions. When the hon. Member for Mansfield asked why the Minister wanted


to increase the limit of the deficiency of the Board, he was being a trifle naive. He must surely know that the Board is trading at a loss, will continue to trade at a loss, has not, since the end of the last chargeable accounting period, namely, 28th March 1970, been trading at a profit, and will turn in a loss for the year 1970–71, as we shall see when the acounts are published in a few months' time.
My question to the Minister on this important Amendment is, having regard to the prescience and the optimism of the National Coal Board, which I have just quoted in their last Report and Accounts, would the Minister not tell us, in respect of the first 11 months of the Coal Board's activities in the current chargeable accounting period—that is, the present financial year—whether its prescience or optimism—call it what one will—is being justified, indeed, whether the Board is now trading at a profit, or whether the dismal losses of the last few years are being continued this year and are being projected into the future.
I believe that the Board is continuing to lose money on a large scale. The answer to the hon. Member for Mansfield is that the Board must have an increase in its cumulative deficit in order to accommodate the continuing losses of this nationalised industry. [Interruption.] It is interesting to see the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, representing the National Union of Mineworkers, present for this debate. Is not he an ex-miner? I am sorry that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) did not contradict me.
Would the Minister therefore confirm my belief that the Board is continuing to lose money heavily and that there is no danger in the early or foreseeable future of the Board trading at a profit?

Mr. Eric Ogden: May I say to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) through you, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friends know from whence I came and which constituency I represent, and what my antecedents were before I came to the House. I am sorry that the ex-hon. Member for Kidderminster, now the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has not got his facts right. As he is insisting that the Coal Board will produce

a loss this year, there is another alternative. Would the hon. Gentleman support an increase in the price of coal?

Sir G. Nabarro: The proper alternative is for the Board to increase efficiency and thereby to reduce the price of its products. If it reduced the price of its products it would be more competitive with oil, would sell more coal, and would relieve the taxpayers of their appalling burden in carrying hundreds of millions of pounds worth of coal losses since the industry was nationalised.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that the burden which the taxpayer had to pay last year, on the figures which he has quoted, was £26 million on deficit? Would he not also accept that the taxpayer received from the Coal Board £37 million in interest charges? Where did the taxpayers lose on that deal?

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) is simple indeed if he believes that the taxpayers of this country can provide the capital sinews of a nationalised industry without interest payments. His Government, between 1964 and 1970—he ought to know this perfectly well—legislated for a reasonable and rational return in the form of interest on loans to the nationalised industries. The Labour Government of earlier years have never suggested that capital moneys should be supplied to nationalised industries without interest payments. The payment of interest by the Coal Board on behalf of taxpayers is very proper and adequate. Indeed, if that interest were not paid, it would amount to a direct subsidy on coal, which is to be deprecated in all circumstances. We are dealing here with continuing losses by the Board and the amount cumulatively to which the deficit ought to be limited.
I hope that my hon. Friend will hold out a modicum of hope for the taxpayers that the inordinate level of losses in recent years is to be remedied by competent business management from his Ministry.

Mr. Swain: It gives me pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), though if I were to follow him along all the paths which he took on this narrowly drawn Amendment my shoe soles would be so


thin that if I struck a match on them I would rip my stockings. He has been all over Great Britain on this narrowly drawn Amendment. I shall remind him of a few words that he said sourly at the beginning of the debate, when he spoke about the cost of coal.
6.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) did not touch on the question why the Amendment has been tabled and why the Minister has increased the Board's borrowing powers. My hon. Friend, quite briefly and properly, touched on the fundamental importance of the relationships between the financial implications of Clause 3 and those of Clause 7. Without being out of order, we must relate to the Board's increased borrowing powers the losses which will accrue to the Board of a period of three years as a result of the measures which will ultimately be taken under Clause 7.
We must assume that the figures presented by the Minister up to date are accurate. No one has yet been able to dispute them; and I shall not attempt to do so. The complications of the financial structure or losses arising on Clause 7 fairly reasonably measure up to the Board's increased borrowing powers. Every penny of added borrowing power, assuming that the Board must borrow money and spend it, adds a further burden to each ton of coal produced and consequently, it will ultimately add a further burden to the price of coal.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South should at least be consistent. As I said in Committee, the hon. Gentleman is consistently inconsistent, because he contradicts himself in each speech he makes. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman defends his right to buy cheap coal; and, on the other hand, he attacks the Board for being forced into a position by the Government where it must increase the price of coal. If the Amendment were accepted, it would go some way towards rectifying the relationship between Clauses 3 and 7.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South spoke of the £415 million which was written off by my right hon. Friends in November, 1965. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that the Bill which was then introduced was designed to accelerate the closure of mines because of the situation

then prevailing. Several of my hon. Friends and I disagreed with the principle behind the 1965 Measure. The writing off of that amount of capital was designed to facilitate the early closure of mines.
Nor did the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South mention that the £415 million which was written off then was only a fraction of the capital debt which was forced upon the Board because of the Tory Government's measures under the "Plan for Coal" in 1955, which envisaged that by 1975 Britain would need 270 million tons of indigenous fuel. The Board had to undertake vast capital expenditure so as to be in a position to meet these demands. By 1965 that whole structure had collapsed because of the Tory Government's bad economic policies. The only mistake made in 1965 was in not writing off £715 million rather than £415 million. If that had been done, we should not have been in this unfortunate position.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South also said that the Board should increase its efficiency. In a period of 10 years the Board has increased its production by 66 per cent., a percentage which has not been achieved by any industry, either traditional or modern, since the War. The industry proudly claimed that it is efficient. As proof of this I point to the contrast between the state of the industry today, with all its modern equipment and modern techniques and its happy labour relations, though sometimes it has bad management, and the state of the industry when it was taken over in 1947, when it was bankrupt.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South often says that Lord Robens is the best Chairman the Board has ever had. This is another of the hon. Gentleman's inconsistencies. He puts a crown on Robens's head one day and knocks him down with a crowbar the next. This is the pattern of the hon. Gentleman's speeches. No doubt he will be going on television or radio tonight to tell the country what a magnificent job he has done for the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman will not be sitting here to take part in the debate on Third Reading. He will be bobbing off at 10 o'clock. He will do his shouting before 10 o'clock and he will then sneak out of here with his whiskers dragging on the floor. We know the hon.


Gentleman and the rumbustious way in which he addresses the House. We are aware of the idiotic content of some of his statements.
The hon. Gentleman's arguments are completely irrelevant to modern mining conditions. I should like to see him crawling about in a two-foot seam. He would have his moustache fast in his knee pads at the end of the shift.
The Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is one of principle. It is in the interests of the taxpayer and of the consumers in the constituencies of Worcestershire, South and Derbyshire, North-East. It is designed to keep the price of coal down. I hope that the Minister will consider the Amendment with the seriousness which my hon. Friend applied to the question when he moved the Amendment.
It is in the interests of taxpayers and coal consumers that the Amendment should be sympathetically considered and that this subject be ventilated so that taxpayers and coal consumers know what effect the increase in the borrowing powers inflicted on the Board to compensate the Government for the money they will steal from the Board by means of later Clauses will have on the economy of this great industry.

Mr. Golding: I should have liked to have spent longer dealing with this subject, but it is important that we move on to other parts of the Bill. I will content myself with saying this.
I put my name to the Amendment because I am very concerned about the Government's general policy towards the nationalised industries as regards pricing and pay. Restrictions on prices will have an impact on pay.
It is one of the Government's unfair policies to discriminate against prices in the public sector. This will have its effect on pay. This could be accepted if two things followed. If there were restrictions on the prices of the commodities that miners have to buy, we could accept some restrictions on their own potential for bargaining. But restrictions on other prices are not being applied. What will happen is that in a very short time the miner will come to be in a very poor bargaining position.
Secondly, from the point of view of the industry itself it would be reasonable to control prices if outside firms and concerns had their prices to the Board pegged. If the Minister were to come to us and say, "In return for pegging the price of coal we will peg or limit the charges that can be made by equipment manufacturers contractors and transporters", then it would be reasonable. Here the unfairness of the situation is that the National Coal Board is being discriminated against in that its costs are going up from outside while it, together with other sectors of public industry, is unable to pass on any of those costs. The financial structure of the industry therefore must suffer, but more important for many of us on this side, the miners themselves will have to suffer the consequences.

Mr. Kelley: First, I would like to apologise to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who has just left his seat, for having acquired some of the habits for which he is very well known, among them making rumbling noises from a sedentary position. I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) on having put down this Amendment. In this inflationary situation £5 million is not a great deal. The purpose of the Amendment is to draw attention to the financial situation in which the industry is placed.
In a debate in this House my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) gave an undertaking that the whole financial structure of the industry would be re-examined in the light of present-day circumstances and that historic values would be reviewed in real terms. The writing-off of £415 million, an exercise which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), was done simply to try to bring into the affairs of the National Coal Board the sense of loss that it had suffered as a result of bad planning, bad forecasting, unscientific approaches to the question of fuel requirements and the rest, whereby large capital expenditure was undertaken by the Board for something found not to be required. For that reason I would like the Minister in his reply to make some reference to the question of write-off. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South referred to the fact that there had


been losses and quoted figures like £8½ million. It has been mentioned that these are simply a shortfall in interest payments. They are not actual losses at all. Let us examine what might have happened to the taxpayers' money. It might have gone into Upper Clyde Shipbuilders or Rolls-Royce and we might have found ourselves deeper in the mire as far as the RB211 is concerned.

An Hon. Member: And Concorde.

Mr. Kelley: Yes, and Concorde; so that when the hon. Gentleman talks about a loss of about £8½ million it might seem to the outside public who are not informed—and the hon. Gentleman has no intention of trying to inform them—that there has been a wicked waste of public money in the production of coal. One thing to which he does not refer, and I have not heard any hon. Member on the other side refer to this, is the enormous losses which the National Coal Board was forced to accept and to suffer by Government policy in previous years when the price of coal could have been a lot more than it was being sold at.
I want to refer to some of the subsidies which are paid in coal-producing countries on the Continent of Europe. There are two elements, the social cost and the actual economic cost of producing coal which in some countries amounts to more than £5 per ton, much more than anything in this country. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) said during the Committee stage that one country was making a profit, South Africa. What an analogy to make with the British coal industry trying to pay reasonable wages and maintain reasonable communities in and around the pits compared with South Africa where there is an abundance of cheap labour controlled by all kinds of quasi-military means!

6.45 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I also spoke of Australia.

Mr. Kelley: What a ridiculous analogy to draw from the proud history of our coal industry and the immense progress made in the colliery areas of this country!

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Would my hon. Friend say something about Australia and the system of mining there? Is not it true that much of it is open-

cast mining and that even in this country we made a profit out of opencast mining?

Mr. Kelley: It is quite true that opencast mining makes a considerable profit because the coal is readily accessible.

Mr. Skeet: It is brown coal in Australia and metallurgical coal for coking, which is underground.

Mr. Kelley: The reason we have to go underground for our coal is because it was put there by the natural elements and it has a certain quality which has made British coal famous throughout the world. On the Continent of Europe they would like to buy some of our coal at this moment because they have a deficiency of their home output which is not meeting the requirements of their Industrial demands; but we have not got it to sell because of lack of foresight not only on the part of the Government which preceded the present Administration but because of lack of foresight of successive Governments over the past 25 years.
I would suggest to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South that if he believes that increased efficiency alone can reduce the price of coal then he should be a little more forthcoming in his advice. There is a job going in July—Chairman of the National Coal Board—and if he has all this abundance of knowledge of how the price of coal to the consumer in his constituency, and a few in mine, can be reduced, I suggest that he should present himself as a possible candidate for that high office. I hope he gets it.

Mr. Michael Foot: I hope that the last proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) will be treated with the utmost reserve by the Government. We know there is no limit to be placed on their folly, but we hope this suggestion will be treated with some care. We have had discussions on this Clause on the Bill on previous occasions and it is one of the most important in the whole Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has raised by this Amendment a matter of the utmost importance for the conduct of the industry as a whole. But I am going to resist the temptation to engage in the general debate on the matter for a variety


of reasons into which I will not enter, partly because we have demolished the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) so effectively on this matter on so many occasions that it would be tedious repetition to conduct the same operation again.
I understand the reasons why my hon. Friends have presented this Amendment and I share the deep suspicion of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield about any proposition that this Government may bring forward. None the less, I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment my hon. Friends have proposed because, particularly if we have to deal with such a Government as this, I am in favour of as much elbow room for the National Coal Board as possible. Therefore, I hope there will be no reduction in the proposal for the amount the Board is to be allowed to borrow under the Bill. Many other industries borrow money extensively, and certainly at a time when the Government are subjecting so many other publicly-owned industries to difficulties, limitations, liquidity squeezes and all these other various devices they are employing I would certainly be strongly opposed to any reduction in the amount that the National Coal Board is able to borrow.
Having said that, I hope that when we are able to discuss these matters further we may be able to consider the proposition which the National Union of Mineworkers rightly continues to press, namely, the need for a further consideration of a fresh capital reconstruction of the industry. The N.U.M. still retains that proposal among the foremost of its demands and it ought to be considered.
This Clause means that the Board is able to continue to operate and one of the reasons why we on this side of the House wish to continue with the Bill, even though it contains the offensive Clauses to which we will come later, is because it also contains Clause 3. I will not repeat the arguments we have used before against the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). I repudiate the accusations he makes against the Coal Board. We have repudiated them in detail on other occasions and will no doubt have an opportunity of doing so again when we come to Third Reading tonight. For

the moment I hope that my hon. Friend, after having heard the Minister's comments, will be willing to withdraw his Amendment, because if it were to be accepted by the Government we would be imposing a limitation on the Board which we are not eager to see.

Sir J. Eden: These are extremely interesting Amendments. I can assure the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that there is no connection between this Clause and later Clauses in the Bill. I am sure that the House will understand that I would much rather not have had to include a Clause of this kind in the Bill. It is no joy to me that the circumstances of the National Coal Board's finances have made it necessary for me to safeguard the statutory position and to bring in such a Clause.
It was because it looked very much as though the statutory deficit limit of £50 million would have been exceeded by the end of the financial year that this Clause was introduced. Obviously some provision had to be made for that. The worsening position of the National Coal Board's finances was due to a number of factors, not least of which, in the latter days, was the impact of the unofficial strikes which had worsened the trading position and considerably added to its costs. Now it looks as though there is a marginally improved situation and I am delighted to be able to say that to the House.
I hope we will not find by the end of the financial year that the previously-imposed limit will have been reached. It is difficult to say what the position will be in a year ahead and I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) an assurance that the danger to which he referred is not likely to arise. It is nevertheless the hope of every hon Member, I know, that the Coal Board, during the course of the coming year, should be increasingly able to improve its financial position and reach a state when it will be trading at a profit.

Sir G. Nabarro: As my hon. Friend knows, I am passionately devoted to the cause of the Coal Board trading profitably—whatever sort of aberration that may be. Would he address himself to the question I put: Has the Coal Board


traded profitably this year, that is the year to 31st March, 1971? That is what I want to know before we have foreceasts for 1971–72.

Sir J. Eden: The year is not completely over, but the Coal Board position so far is that it has not succeeded in producing a profit for the year.

Sir G. Nabarro: I thought so, still losing money.

Sir J. Eden: Nonetheless there is some time left for the latest figures to come in and I hope that these will show that the situation has been transformed. Hon. Members know the position. There have been a number of price increase proposals—there is one before us now—which will have an effect upon the Board's profitability. There are a number of considerations bearing on this.
In the circumstances, with a steadily improving situation affecting the Coal Board's financial performance, as I hope will be the case, there seems to be strong reason for lowering the levels which I have prescribed in the Bill. There is a strong argument for accepting these Amendments but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I understand his reasons for moving his Amendments in the way that he did. It has, as he said, given rise to an interesting debate, but I do not think it would be helpful to accept the Amendment in the form in which it has been presented and I would advise the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: It is natural when a Government formed of Members of the Party opposite brings forward a Clause of this kind in a Bill dealing with the nationalised industries, that there should be a great deal of suspicion about the ulterior motives. We are entitled to be suspicious because of some of the things in other Clauses. The Minister has given an assurance on Second Reading and in Committee that there is no link between the provisions of this Clause and the later Clauses, particularly Clauses 7 and 8. In accepting these assurances I warn the Minister that his subsequent attitude when and if this Bill becomes law, will be closely watched by those connected with the industry. If the assurances that he has given are in any way broken, by whatever means, he will

forfeit the right to be believed by people in the industry and in the House.

Mr. Concannon: Having had the Minister's assurances and knowing that he has taken the point about having a completely fresh look at the finances of the industry, promised by the last Administration, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

POWER OF BOARD TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH OVERSEAS AID

Sir J. Eden: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 8, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 9 and insert:
An order of the Secretary of State under the proviso to section 2(1) of the Act of 1949 (control of Board's activities outside Great Britain) shall not be required as authority for anything which the Board may do with consent under the foregoing subsection; but before giving any consent thereunder".

Mr. Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss Amendment No. 20: page 7, line 3, at end insert: "'the Act of 1949' means the 'Coal Industry Act, 1949'."

Sir J. Eden: An Amendment similar to this was moved by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) during our proceedings in Committee. I said then that I felt that his Amendment was unnecessary but that I would have a further look at the matter and if I thought there was room for doubt I would move an Amendment on Report. I have had an opportunity of further study of the point which he originally made.
7.0 p.m.
The effect of Section 2 of the Coal Industry Act, 1949, is to enable the National Coal Board to carry on activities outside Great Britain provided they are authorised by order of the Secretary of State. Clause 5 empowers the Board to give technical assistance overseas, and it might be argued that the execution of this new power is an activity to which Section 2 of the 1949 Act applies. The fact that the Clause requires the consent of the Minister responsible for overseas aid and


the Secretary of State to be obtained for the Board's proposals implies strongly that no order under Section 2 of the 1949 Act is needed. None the less, there is possibly some slight area of doubt here. It is conceivable that there could arise some misunderstanding. I agree with the view put forward by the hon. Member for Chesterfield in Committee that, if such doubt exists, it is desirable to remove it and make absolutely clear that the Board will not need an order from the Secretary of State under Section 2 of the 1949 Act for technical assistance activities under Clause 5. The Amendment makes the position perfectly clear.
Amendment No. 20 is consequential upon Amendment No. 8.

Mr. Varley: As the Minister said, we discussed this matter in Committee and he gave an assurance that he would look at it again. The Amendment will help to clear up difficulties within Clause 5 and improve the Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO CALL FOR REPORT OF BOARD'S DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES

Mr. Brynmor John: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 21, leave out 'within the meaning of the Act of 1946' and insert 'as specified in the Schedule hereto'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 21, leave out
'colliery activities within the meaning of the Act of 1946'
and insert 'coal-mining activities'.
Amendment No. 14, in page 5, line 29, leave out
'colliery activities within the meaning of the Act of 1946'
and insert 'coal-mining activities'.
Amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 40, at end insert:
() The Secretary of State shall not give a direction to the Board under this section of the effect of which would be to require them to dispose or require a subsidiary of theirs to dispose, of any part of their or its under-

taking, or any asset, which is managed or held wholly or mainly for the purposes of colliery activities.
Amendment No. 21, in page 7, line 8, at end insert:
'coal-mining activities' means—

(a) activities undertaken for the purpose of searching, boring for, working and getting coal, treating, rendering saleable, supplying, selling or otherwise making available coal. or for the efficient development of the coal-mining industry;
(b) activities undertaken for the purpose of producing, manufacturing, treating, rendering saleable and supplying, selling or otherwise making available coke.

and Amendment No. 22, new Schedule (Colliery Activities).

Mr. John: It will be necessary to go into a little detail about the Clause, but before doing so it would be right to say that I am extremely disappointed, as are several of my hon. Friends, especially those who sat through the long Committee sittings, that the Minister has not been able to bring forward such an Amendment. I know his excuse will be that he cannot easily effect the Amendment, but I reject that implied slur on the draftsman's competence because in my view it is comparatively simple to effect. The implication of the Minister's refusal must be that he wants the wider powers which the unadulterated or unamended Clause gives to him.
For the purpose of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, a distinction is drawn between colliery activities and coal industry activities. Clause 6 legislates by reference to that distinction and gives power to the Secretary of State to call for reports on various of the Board's activities. The only activities on which the Secretary of State would be precluded under the Clause from calling for a report are those that involve the colliery activities of the Board.
It becomes important to appreciate, therefore, what constitutes "colliery activities" within the 1946 Act. Section 63 defines "colliery activities" as—
searching or boring for, winning, working or getting coal, bringing it to the surface, treating it and rendering it saleable, and includes depositing spoil arising from working coal or from any other of the activities mentioned in this definition.
That is an extremely narrow definition. It merely covers the getting of the coal from under ground and bringing it to the


surface, and the separation of coal and slag. It does not cover many activities which are vitally and inextricably concerned with modern coal mining. Those fall within the definition of "coal industry activities" under that Act, upon which the Minister could now call for a report. I will give some examples of coal industry activities. The first is colliery electricity plants, which produce electricity for consumption by the colliery. The second is colliery transport or loading facilities. An example would be the aerial ropeway upon which the slag is loaded to be transported to be dumped away from the colliery. The third type of activity is merchanting property. The fourth example, and perhaps the most bizarre of all when we are considering the ability of the Secretary of State to call for reports, is colliery institutes, canteens, baths and other welfare activities. The fifth is maintenance of operational, office and general equiment. For example, trams are used for the transportation of coal, and so are conveyors. Facilities for repairing these exist on the surface of the colliery in a fitting shop, a blacksmith's shop or an electrical shop. These places are vital for the continued existence of the colliery, yet under Clause 6, reports upon the activities of these could be called for.
The next one is stocks of products, curtilages and development sites, colliery coke ovens and manufacturing fuel plants.

Mr. Skeet: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what is meant by "certain associated minerals" in Amendment No. 22? Would that include clay and bricks?

Mr. John: "Associated minerals" are minerals such as hardstone, and so on.
The Minister could call for reports upon all the activities which I have specified, all of which are activities intimately linked with the mining of coal in a modern context. The legend to Clause 6 is "Power of Secretary of State to call for report of Board's diversified activities." These are not diversified activities, but activities which are closely and inextricably linked with the mining of coal.
We know that the Government, in their present purblind state, would be grateful for information on almost any subject, but even they would derive little

encouragement from knowing how many bars of soap were consumed at any pithead bath, or how efficient a colliery canteen is.
It is little wonder that this piece of stupidity on the part of the Government was too much even for hon. Members opposite in Committee. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was incredulous, which is not an easy thing to achieve. The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) condemned his own side by saying that the Minister's definition was too narrow, and the Minister said that he did not want the reports to cover welfare activities.
As the Clause is drafted the Secretary of State could call for reports on all these things, and many others, which would not provide much information but would be a distraction to the Board in the management of the coal industry.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman said that I was incredulous in Committee. My recollection is that I was exactly the opposite and strongly supported my Minister on this matter. Would the hon. Gentleman give me the column in which he says I was incredulous?

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman will remember the long passage concerned.

Sir G. Nabarro: Which column?

Mr. John: I will read it at a later stage. The hon. Member will remember the passage at arms that he and I had as to the exact meaning of the definition and that I asked the Minister to bring along the Solicitor-General to confirm that my view of the legal point involved was correct. If the hon. Gentleman turns his attention to that point, I am sure he will be able to recollect it.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman keeps on making unworthy and inaccurate allegations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the kindness of referring to the column in which he is asserting that I was incredulous, for if he does he will find that he is entirely in error. I will give him an opportunity to find the passage to prove that he is wrong. I spent a considerable time giving powerful support to my Minister in Committee. I was not critical of him in any sense whatever.

Mr. John: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the passage occurs in columns 323 and 324. Even with the hon. Gentleman's memory, that passage should not have faded quite so quickly from his mind. He was incredulous of the fact—and if he had attempted to follow what I was saying he might have appreciated it a little sooner—that colliery electricity plants are included in any report called for by the Minister under the Clause. That was the point of it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having interrupted in what he likes to call his ebullient fashion—which some of us might regard a little less charitably—will apologise for his intervention.

Sir G. Nabarro: I have nothing to apologise for. I repeat what I said in Committee that the electricity installation of a colliery plant is an integral part of the colliery undertaking. It was never the intention of my hon. Friends to hive off an electricity installation responsible for the operation of the colliery itself. What I was stressing as a legitimate purpose was the hiving off of non-colliery activities.

Mr. John: By instancing hiving off the hon. Gentleman betrays his ignorance both of my argument and of the Bill, which we are attempting to discuss between his interruptions. Clause 7 is the provision which deals with hiving off.

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. John: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment while I go on with the difficult business of making a speech, I wish to point out that we are now dealing with Clause 6, which involves the power of the Minister to call for reports on diversified activities.

Sir G. Nabarro: Silly man.

Mr. John: I am not prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He must content himself with sotto voce interruptions. He knows that I asked the Minister to bring along the Solicitor-General to assist us over Clause 63. He did not do so and therefore I take it that he assented to my view of the law. If he did, the hon. Gentleman is clearly wrong.

Mr. Skeet: I am interested in the definition in the Amendment, but is the hon. Member not destroying his ease by

including among associated minerals ironstone clay? I can see there is a certain link between coke ovens and colliery electricity plants, but where does the link come with the iron ore? I would have thought that this matter could be investigated by the Minister.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to finish dealing with the Amendment and he can then make his own comments. The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), in differing from his own side and from his Minister's definition, invited us to put down an Amendment on this matter. We are happy to put forward this moderate Amendment. The Amendment is so moderate that I am reminded of A.E. Housman's lines from "A Shropshire Lad":
And miles around the wonder grew How well did I behave.
7.15 p.m.
We have made concessions on this point by extracting those categories included in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act as being coal industry activities and manufactured fuel plants. I know that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is particularly interested in the operation of those plants and I would point out to him that we took those definitions from the 1946 Act. For the benefit of hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their concern for the poor land speculator, we felt that curtilages and development sites should also be omitted. Even if the Minister accepts this Amendment, it will mean not only that curtilages and development sites and manufactured fuel plants would be reported upon at the Minister's behest, but such things as North Sea gas and oil, brickworks, computers, and so on, which so arouse Members' interest. We are hoping to avoid the board of management being distracted by reporting on matters which are vitally connected with the production of coal and to see that this should not be reported on at the whim of the Minister. I know that several hon. Gentlemen have expressed reservations about the definitions. Since they feel that the Minister is not giving this matter the attention it deserves, we feel that we must try to create an oasis of sense in a desert of muddle-headedness.
Amendment No. 9 introduces the new definition of "coal mining activities".


Broadly, these are colliery activities defined in the 1946 Act to which has been added the efficient development of the coal mining industry. We prefer that definition to the words which now appear in the Clause. But of the two Amendments we prefer Amendment No. 10 because it has the merit of clarity about what activities are excepted from review and what activities are included. We feel that the Minister could accept this Amendment without breaching any other point of principle which may divide the two sides of the House. But if he is impervious to reason and wishes to prevent the Board from getting on with its task, then this will hamper the Board at every turn. If this is the real reason behind the Clause, I hope that hon. Members will unite in supporting this Amendment.

Mr. Peter Rees: I am grateful for the opportunity of being able to take part in this discussion, particularly because I had been dismissed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) as a minor exception to the rule which he has propounded that all constituencies containing deposits of coal should be represented by Labour Members.
Every argument advanced by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in support of this group of Amendments convinces me that the words in brackets in lines 21 and 22 on page 4 should be omitted and that, far from any cuttingdown of the Minister's rights of review, they should be expanded.
In support of his argument, the hon. Gentleman advanced the extraordinary proposition that the activities which he wished to see excluded from the Minister's review were those vitally concerned with the primary purposes of the National Coal Board. I nurture no hostility to the Board. I am an admirer and a supporter of it. It does good work in my constituency. However, the Minister might be said to represent the interests of the Board's shareholders, and it must be his duty on our behalf to review not only the peripheral activities which will be touched upon when we come to discuss Clause 7 but also the Board's primary activities. Although the Minister should not be involved in the day-to-day running of the affairs of the Board, it must be his

duty from time to time to review the Board's primary activities.

Mr. John: I urge two points in answer to that. The first is the power under Section 3 of the 1946 Act for the Minister to call for reports on the vital concerns of the Board. The second is that the margin note of Clause 6 is
Power of Secretary of State to call for report of Board's diversified activities.
In no sense can the activities which the Amendment seeks to exclude be called diversified. They are the very kernel of the Board's activities.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is as well if not better versed in the law than I am. He knows that no court will construe a statutory provision by reference to the side-note. That is only of marginal assistance. I am sure that he is not suggesting that we should be guided by those words.
Even accepting that the provision should be directed to diversified activities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has pointed out, the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Pontypridd refers to
… coal and mines of coal and certain associated minerals".
"Associated minerals" is a very vague phrase. For example, it probably covers clay deposits, and it could even cover oil, if it were discovered, and possibly natural gas, though, in saying that, I do not offer any legal opinion.
I come back to the principal point. It must be the Minister's duty to review all the Board's activities from time to time. Looking at the report and accounts of the National Coal Board for 1969–70, I am struck by the fact that there is no breakdown area by area giving the kind of information which the hon. Gentleman seeks to exclude by his Amendment. I feel that the Board could have made far more detailed accounts for the information of the House.
The second point which the hon. Gentleman put to me was that the Minister has powers under the 1946 Act. I agree. However, that makes the hon. Gentleman's Amendment otiose, in any event. I recall that two post-war Labour Governments introduced Companies Acts, in 1948 and 1967, in which, very properly, they imposed on directors of


both public and private companies the obligations to prepare proper accounts and records of their activities for their shareholders. I do not think that the National Coal Board should be under any less duty, and I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite support Amendments which seek to impose a lesser standard of duty on the Board than that which they expect of boards of companies in the private sector.
For those reasons, I cannot support this group of Amendments.

Mr. Golding: By this legislation, as we see it, the Government are calling for a special review of all Coal Board activities other than the digging-out of coal and its preparation at the pit-head for sale. This Clause gives speculators a licence not to print but to prospect among the books for wealth. We think that that licence should not be granted, because the public interest and the welfare of miners should be our first concern.
The Government know that there is no profit in colliery activities, as opposed to coal-mining activities, so they are not concerned with them. Last year, colliery activities lost, before interest, £4½ million, even after a profit of £7·3 million had been made on open-cast workings. I am sure that a little more cheek on the Minister's part would have resulted in his asking that a closer look should be given to open-cast workings. In addition, I am surprised that the Government are not asking for a detailed examination of pits which are actually profitable, like those in my constituency.
Under Clause 6, the Government want to review the profit-making activities of the Board so that they can make rather belated election presents to their friends. The Minister has been careful not to miss anything, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) pointed out, and even one hon. Member opposite expressed his disquiet at the Minister's selection.
This legislation empowers the Minister to call for reports of those non-colliery activities which are still an integral part of coal production, such as pit-head baths, those which earn large profits, and those, like computers and North Sea Gas, which ensure that assets are fully-used.
I will not discuss pit-head baths tonight. This type of facility was discussed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), and tonight it has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. However, I will comment on what the Bill calls other "diversified activities".
In 1969–70, coke, by-products and processed fuels made a profit, before interest, of £9·4 million, and other activities made £4·2 million. Non-colliery activities turned a loss of £4·5 million into a profit of £8·8 million. Clearly they are vital to the industry, and certainly they are not ancillary or peripheral as regards its financial welfare.
Against that financial background, one can only wonder at the Government's logic in expressing a desire to review those activities which are directly concerned with improving the profitability of selling coal or with the achievement of the full use of assets which have been created to assist in efficient coal-producing. To my knowledge, no evidence has been produced that they lead in any way to greater losses on the colliery activities. The profits earned £9·4 million on coke and other products and £4·2 million on other activities, were very welcome in 1969–70.
It does not take a review to tell a Minister that it makes sense to process coal. Everyone knows that the more sophisticated the more specialised the fuel, the greater is the return on capital that one gets from that fuel. It does not take an inquiry to find out that at the pit top, where coal faces competition from cleaner, more adaptable fuels, it is better and more profitable to transform that coal into coke which can be sold at a good price, without competition, to blast furnaces and iron foundries. There is a lot of money to be made from specialised fuels, as both the Coal Board and private enterprise have discovered.
7.30 p.m.
There is also money to be made by the development of existing and new chemical by-products. The processing of coal can be used to mitigate against the seasonal fluctuation in demand. It is also true that the location of coke and chemical plants at collieries not only means that the asserts of the Board are used more


fully but reduces demands on transportation.
It needs no inquiry under Clause 6 to tell the Minister these truths about the mining industry. Nor do we need an inquiry to tell us that it makes sense for the Coal Board to be involved in the distribution of coal. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries was making this inquiry only this week.
The National Coal Board, to protect its customers, has not only had to supervise private enterprise merchants; it has had to act directly to try to reduce distribution costs. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who talk about the price of coal ought to be drawing attention to the big differential between the pit-head price of coal and its price at the coal-house door. Hon. Gentlemen should be drawing attention to the substantial costs placed upon the housewife by the small private-enterprise distributor. It is for this reason that the N.C.B. has joined Amalgamated Anthracite in forming the British Fuel Company—a company which produces a profit. The Board has also created, again to reduce distribution costs, large mechanised depôts, which, again, have been making money.
The Minister does not need an inquiry to show that these are problems which have to be solved by extending the range of work away from colliery activities.

Mr. Spriggs: My hon. Friend referred to the margins which the retail distributor takes from the distribution of coal. As there must be millions of consumers interested in this point, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware what those margins are and, if so, whether he will give that information to the House?

Mr. Golding: I am advised that the margin is about 105s. per ton.

Mr. Concannon: The price paid at the pit head for the year 1969–70 was 105s. 2d. per ton. That was the amount paid to the National Coal Board for every ton of coal which it mined in 1969–70. There is a vast difference between that and the amount which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is always quoting of £20 to £25 per ton.

Mr. Golding: It is also important for any fuel concern to be involved in central

heating. The coal industry is faced with competition from oil—although that competition is quickly disappearing—from gas, and from electricity. These industries have established organisations to assist in the fostering of central heating. It is important that the Coal Board should have a stake in the central heating market.
I do not think that any business can afford to neglect the use and exploitation of its waste products—clay and shale in the case of the Coal Board.
I do not want to argue the case for housing—it is obvious on social grounds —but in housing, too, the Coal Board is making a profit.
Involvement in computers and North Sea gas is more controversial. But it is reasonable and sensible for the N.C.B. to be involved in both, because there is spare time and geological talent in the Coal Board.
The Bill aims to examine the profitable parts of the business, leaving the unprofitable parts in darkness. If the Government had honourable intentions, that would be ridiculous. What business man would devote all his time to examining the profitable side of his activities and make no searching inquiries into the unprofitable side? It is only because the Government's intentions are dishonourable that it makes sense. Their only justification is to make sure that they cannot be charged later with handing over to their friends any unprofitable parts of the industry. That is why they have to examine the books so carefully.
To justify this the Minister has relied heavily on precedents. However, none has been very convincing to hon. Members on this side. In the main they appear to be irrelevant in the context of hiving off.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has argued ingeniously that a review is needed to increase parliamentary accountability. In doing so, the hon. Gentleman has been rather rude to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the public interest read with rather less conviction than his arguments relating to the virtues of hiving off the profitable parts of the nationalised industries. At least the hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his total opposition to the coal industry over the years.


There is no reason to distinguish between colliery activities and coal-mining activities if we have the interests of the nation or of the coal-mining industry and the miners at heart. I do not think that the Coal Board should have these sorties inflicted upon it. We know that after the sorties provided in Clause 6, the plunder of Clause 7 will follow.
Unfortunately the coal-mining industry has fallen into the hands of its traditional political enemies, well-expressed over the years, at a time when it has both profitable and unprofitable sections. The tragedy for the coal-mining industry is that the Government are determined to take away the profitable parts, to give the cream to their friends, as we saw with the air lines, and to leave the unprofitable parts, which will produce great problems for the industry and lead to years of discontent for the mining community.

Mr. Skeet: I like the way that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) puts his case. I put a sharp question to him. I understand the Clause to relate to inspections and reviews and to nothing further. This is not hiving off of assets. I can see a relation between coal and mines, colliery coke, colliery electricity and colliery baths and canteens—this can be described as ejusdem generis—but when he advanced certain associated minerals, including ironstone, he went well outside this category.
Also in this, one can include clay, slate, limestone and many other minerals. Had it not been for this, the suggestion might have been reasonable. Having gone well beyond this, it seems that the Minister may require to look into these various activities. If he can assist the House by finding in the charter Act a complete definition of associated minerals, I shall be very interested. Or if the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-West (Mr. Swain), who is on the edge of his seat, has already thought up the actual definition which the 1946 Act should include, I will give way to him.

Mr. Swain: On the periphery of Chesterfield there is a coal seam with a seam of clay immediately above it, about 2 ft. 3 ins. thick. That seam of coal and clay is mined together. Would the hon. Gentleman consider that section of clay, which is used by the Coal Board in its

brick-making plants, an integral part of the mine in which the coal is mined?

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman is going further into the matter now; he is including bricks. I thought that I was giving way to him to let him point to a certain Section in the 1946 parent Act which defines associated minerals. Now we have not merely ironstone, road stone, slate and limestone but also clay for brick making.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman will readily concede that there is a reference in the Schedule to its being more particularly defined in the 1946 Act. Part I of the First Schedule to that Act describes the other unworked associated minerals as
… other than coal being minerals which can only be economically worked in association with the working of coal or which can only be economically brought to the surface by the use of a mine of coal …
So all the associated minerals are those described there, which are to go with mining.

Mr. Skeet: Of course it goes on to particularise this, but this Schedule goes even further. I asked the hon. Member how he would describe associated minerals. He gave me the example of ironstone. A number of these are associated, but my hon. Friend should consider these activities. If I were Chairman of the National Coal Board or a mine manager, I would not bother about baths or canteens or electricity plant, but I should be interested in associated minerals.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the point, that whatever minerals are brought up are limited by the Schedule of the Act to those which can be worked only in association with the mining of coal. In other words, it is not completely mining of ironstone or other minerals. It is only those minerals which can be mined in association with a mine of coal.

Mr. Skeet: I appreciate that point, which was emphasised before. Certain of these things are in the ground. There may be a whole broad band of common minerals which are used for road stone and the like. All of these things are or may become peripheral activities of the Coal Board, which it may want to investigate, and, in due course, under Clause 7,


hive off. The hon. Gentleman would have been on stronger ground if he had confined his argument to those activities which hang together, but he has gone further than that. I could not possibly support him on the basis of that argument.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) said that the Clause had nothing to do with hiving off, that it was not the highway or even the threshold of that activity, that it would simply enable the Minister to make some inquiries about the conduct of the Coal Board.
Hon. Members opposite, claiming to be men of principle, have argued on two principles—but never at the same time, because they are contradictory. During any one day or debate or week we hear the claim that, because of principle, the Government are pulling out of interference with industry, that they will support the setting up of a Post Office Corporation, for instance. How many times in the last few days have we heard the Secretary of State say, "Of course we cannot interfere with what the Post Office is doing. This is a commercial operation." Then, half an hour later, another Minister comes along and says, "This is exactly the purpose of the Bill: we will interfere in the day-to-day running of a nationalised industry."
They cannot have both arguments at the same time. It would be helpful if they made up their minds and tried to stay in one position instead of being like shifting sands. The two together—non-interference with commercial operations and this Bill, which is direct interference —are contradictory.
No one can accept that this has nothing to do with hiving off. This is the preparation for hiving off. The Minister always has had the power to find out what is happening in any nationalised industry without extending that power in this Clause.

Mr. Stainton: At the risk of isolating myself from the remainder of my colleagues, I should like to revert to what happened in Committee on this point. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) tended to get the House into the kind of mess which we got into in Committee.
This is a very narrow point. It is clear that it is by no means the Government's intention to interfere with the central core of the Coal Board. Given that premise, the argument then concentrates on Clause 7. But we have to establish that premise. In Committee, I commented, "A plague on both your houses," to the Minister, on behalf of the Government, for drawing his definition too wide in terms of colliery activities, and to the Opposition for constricting the definition in the other extreme.
I suggested that perhaps we might have a Schedule giving greater precision. Despite the risk of otiose comment on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), Amendments 10 and 22 commend themselves to me.
The precise wording of Amendment No. 22 in terms of the Schedule may not be exactly to the Minister's liking. Perhaps, in terms of the interpretation Sections of the 1946 Act, the definition of associated minerals has been somewhat too truncated, despite the cross-reference back to the 1946 Act. Nevertheless, Amendments Nos. 10 and 22 commend themselves to me because, by this means, we remove the argument which exists between the two sides of the House. The central core of the N.C.B. remains immune, as I understand it, and subject to the discipline of the 1946 Act.
One is not seeking to impose further disciplines on the essential activities of the N.C.B., If, therefore, we can get a definition somewhat on the lines of Amendments Nos. 10 and 22 combined, the argument about pithead baths and so on could be got out of the way, and we could move on to the area of contention which is embraced in Clause 7.

Mr. Swain: I am delighted to speak following the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) who, in relation to the matters raised in Amendments Nos. 10 and 22, adduced a consistent argument in Committee. He has continued to discuss these matters with great clarity.
Before proceeding, I should, perhaps, mention that I shall not refer further to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) who, judging by his absence, is probably now on the soup course.


As the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge pointed out, Amendments Nos. 10 and 22 define something which the Minister refused in Committee to define, and I hope that at this stage he will accept these definitions. For example, in Amendment No. 22 we have the inclusion of
maintenance operational office and general equipment
and these establishments are set up at the pit head, though maintenance only in a minor way. The main source of maintenance in my part of the world is the central workshops of the N.C.B. at Markham, where I was employed for many years. These workshops are just across the road from the shaft which produces two million tons of coal a year. In other words, the central workshops are an integral part of the working of pits.
The research establishment at Bretby is situated in a somewhat remote position in relation to the nearest coal mine, which is the Bretby pit, or Stanhope pit, as it was commonly called. This is a drift mine. This research station is an integral part of every colliery because it is the main research station of the N.C.B. It is largely as a result of its efforts that output per man shift has been increased, so enabling the cost per ton of coal to he reduced, or at any rate to be kept within reasonable limits.
The workshops, with their modern plant and machinery, and the research station, where vital research work is conducted, are vital to the successful working of pits throughout the country. The workshops, because of their sophisticated and modern equipment, employ highly skilled labour. It would be a tragedy if, because of the profitability of these activities, the workshops and research station were to become subjected to the review and, as a result of the review, sold in the pig market with other ancillary undertakings of the N.C.B.
I cannot add to what my hon. Friends have said about the importance of Amendments Nos. 10 and 22, except to tell the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), who must lean forward lest his wings become squashed on the back of his seat, that in his flamboyant way he was trying to define something indefinable. I urge him to visit a coal field and to examine the geological sections

relative to a seam of coal. He will find that immediately above and below the seam are the minerals which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has in mind, such as stone and clay. If these and other minerals were not mined simultaneously with coal, it would me impossible to mine coal.

Mr. Skeet: I am not saying that they are not or should not be mined together or in association, but that it is right to leave the review open to include them because it is the end use which is of concern.

Mr. Swain: I hope that the Minister will consider Amendments Nos. 10 and 22 in relation to Clause 6, which is the vehicle on which Clause 7 will ultimately ride. Clause 6 gives the power of review and Clause 7 gives the Minister power to direct. I regard the vehicle as the most important provision in this part of the Bill.

Mr. Spriggs: I urge my hon. Friend to remind the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) of the success which the coal industry has had in mining various mineral deposits. The N.C.B. has made a success of extracting these minerals, along with coal, and should be congratulated on its enterprise in this sphere.

Mr. Swain: rose—

Mr. Skeet: rose—

Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman is bobbing up and down like a man in a mixed bathing pool. I think that my hon. Friend who is to wind up the debate for the Opposition will handle very well the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs). I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendments in the spirit in which they have been so admirably moved.

8.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I must first apologise for coming back to the Bill after not having been with it during its Committee stage. But I have read with the greatest interest the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in Committee, including the very short contribution of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), which put the Opposition's case admirably.


This is not the moment for us to get extremely het up and excited about any possible action under the next Clause. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) described the Amendment as the vehicle for Clause 7. That is not true, because the mere holding of a review in no sense determines what its outcome is to be. The question before the House is simply, which are the areas of the Coal Board's activities which should be reviewed? We are up against a quite simple problem of definition, of defining, if we can, those parts of the Coal Board's activities which are to do with the winning of coal, which I think all lion. Members accept are not to be subject to the review. If we could find a form of words which on the one hand covers the Government's clear desire to have a wide review of all the activities not directly related to coal mining and on the other hand excludes the obvious winning of coal, I think that we should all be happy.
The difficulty is that no definition produced so far has quite met the problems involved. Two solutions are offered in the group of Amendments. The first is that the definition
coal-mining activities.
should be substituted for
colliery activities".
But there is no explanation of the meaning of
coal-mining activities.
The phrase is so vague as to have no meaning in terms of pinning the Government down, which is what the Opposition seek to do. I think that it is not that Amendment which is the main burden of the Opposition's case, because it contains a totally unspecific and undefined concept.
Therefore, I shall concentrate on Amendment No. 10, which introduces the new Schedule containing what purports to be a specific definition. We all agree that such things as welfare facilities, miners' institutes, pithead baths, electrical generation associated with the colliery, and storage of stocks of coal, should be considered part of the mining of coal and excluded from a review. There is no difficulty about that, but the proposed new Schedule tries to extend that concept into the various subjects mentioned in it.
A number of difficulties would arise from a strict interpretation of the Schedule. First, it would exclude from any possibility of the review, sales at any stage of the distribution process or chain, including retail sales and joint enterprises with the private sector to promote them. That whole area would be excluded by the Amendment. It would probably—although there is some doubt as to the full legal interpretation—exclude fuel manufacture and distillation of coal, an area going far away from coal mining. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) spoke about that in some detail, but assumed that the whole series of activities was profitable, without having the knowledge on which to base that confidence. He even went so far as to say that not only all the smokeless fuel products of the National Coal Board but also the housing subsidiary are highly profitable. He may be right, but surely we could all talk about these matters much more sensibly if we had a review and knew the full extent to which the hon. Gentleman was right or wrong. If he is so confident that he is right, he need have no fear about the outcome of the review.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman says that he has read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, though we did not have the pleasure of his company. One of the problems mentioned then was that capitalist firms do not trust each other. Industrial espionage is going on within capitalism, and to reveal the whole of the Coal Board's activities would leave the Board open to that industrial espionage. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that when he talks about opening up the books.

Mr. Ridley: I read the passage in HANSARD reporting the debate on this matter, and the very firm assurances by my hon. Friend that there would be no release of such information. But this whole subject is alien to the topic to which I am trying to address myself.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) about associated minerals could be valid. There could be some that should be included in the review. I concede that it is unlikely that there will be many, but it is conceivable that a material which is worked normally out of the pit could


become the subject of a separate activity in the downstream treatment by the Coal Board, so it would be wrong a priori to exclude such minerals from the review.
There is also the matter of colliery transport, loading and storage works, which is included in the Schedule. This could even mean such things as Coal Board-owned transport facilities going from the pits to other parts of the country, and exclude even the Immingham terminal. That is clearly nothing to do with coal mining, whatever its merits may be, and it is something which should be included in the review.

Mr. Stainton: These reservations are so all-permeating that we wonder why on earth the Government have bothered to insert line 21.

Mr. Ridley: I want to deal with that point, and I shall come to it.
Colliery merchanting property is included in the Schedule. To some extent this comprises the purchasing department of the Board. Though there would be no question of wishing to hive off such a thing, it might well need to be reorganised. Why Labour hon. Members are so frightened of reviewing these things is hard to understand.
There is great difficulty in "plonking" the First Schedule of the 1946 Act into this Bill as a Schedule, because that Schedule was designed to list the activities which had to be transferred compulsorily from the old companies to the Coal Board. Therefore, it covered a very different type of situation from that with which we are trying to deal. Indeed, just to take this simple step, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has done, of lifting Schedule I to the 1946 Act, is, to quote his own words, "a desert of muddleheadedness".

Mr. John: If the hon. Gentleman intends to be insulting, he might at least be accurate. The new Schedule is not lifted from the 1946 Act. Manufactured fuel plants and curtilages and development sites have been omitted in an effort, as we thought, to be reasonable. The hon. Gentleman should not be abusive when there is no need for it and no accuracy in what he is saying.

Mr. Ridley: I cannot accept that if I simply quote the hon. Gentleman's own

words back to him they are insulting. They were not meant to be insulting when he used them against the Government, so I presume that he cannot complain about their being used back to him. Indeed, he has left out one or two of the items in the Schedule, but, as I have pointed out, he has included a lot of things which clearly should not be included.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry tried very hard to find a definition which would cover all the things we want while not including anything we do not want. He has been unable to find a legal definition of the sort that would please everyone in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge asks, "Why have these two lines in at all? Why not just review all the activities?" But I think hon. Members opposite would join me in feeling that it is right to exclude the main coal-mining activities, and that is what we intend to do.

Mr. Stainton: My remark was one of despair.

Mr. Ridley: I am sure that my hon. Friend would despair if he had to try to draft a Schedule or Amendment which met this situation. All we are proposing is to review the activities. I do not want to prejudge, but in some cases there may be a case for the National Coal Board to hive off; in other cases, it may wish to reorganise. The holding of a review is in no sense prejudging the outcome. The only thing that I can ask the House to do is to leave it to the good sense of my hon. Friend not to review things like pithead baths and activities of the sort which are clearly part of the activity of a colliery. Anyone who thought that it was worth having a special review of pithead baths or of the electrical machinery in a pit would be wasting the time of all concerned, and we have no intention of doing so. But, in face of the fact that it is impossible to find any way of leaving out the things that we want left out and to make a sensible definition, the course I suggest is the only sensible one to take.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East asked about the central workshops and the research station at Bretby. Although it is right that there should be power in the Bill to include them in the review, I think it extremely unlikely that they would be hived off, for the reasons


he gave. If I make that concession, I am sure that he would agree that there is no harm in allowing such matters to be reviewed. The holding of the review is something which no one should be frightened of. No one should feel that a review is in any way undue after 25 years of nationalisation, and I hope that the House will accept that it is perfectly reasonable to leave the Bill as it is, to hold the review and to take the decisions in the light of that review.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: It would be a good idea for the House to come to a decision by a vote on this matter, although I naturally do not want to curtail any further discussion of it. But there will be plenty of opportunity later in the evening, on Third Reading, and at other stages, to discuss it. We might, therefore, come to a conclusion by a vote. From what the Under-Secretary of State said, I do not think it likely that we shall impress him by any further arguments because it is clear that the arguments we have already put have had no effect on the Government.
The hon. Gentleman said that the items in the new Schedule proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) had been lifted from the First Schedule to the 1946 Act. He was wrong. The items were selected from that Schedule, as my hon. Friend made clear, with the purpose of making an accommodation—that is, of dealing with some of the matters which hon. Members opposite stated in Committee they wished to have studied. We realised that if we were to achieve a definition which would be acceptable to the House, we should have to select from that Schedule. The hon. Gentleman has given a mistaken impression of the meaning of our proposal. He talked as if all the sales activities which, he said, it would not be right to include if we had this provision, were not covered under paragraph 5. According to our reading of the First Schedule to the 1946 Act, possibly there are many other detailed matters of interpretation on which he is mistaken, but even if that were not so, we should not have accepted his statement that it was impossible to find a formula which would achieve what the House wanted.
When we debated this matter in Committee, almost all hon. Members on both

sides, holding different views on the subject, nevertheless agreed that the existing form of the Bill was not satisfactory. The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) quite fairly represented to the House exactly the same point. He said that all of us wished to define, if we could, the central core activities, as he described them, of the Board which we had thought in the Committee everyone was eager to see excluded from the kind of operation proposed in Clauses 6, 7 and 8. The hon. Gentleman, who made many valuable contributions to our debates, agrees with what I am saying. Indeed, I am merely repeating what he said.
I cannot believe that it is beyond the capacity of the Parliamentary draftsmen to devise a scheme which would put into the Bill what we want to achieve, particularly when they have all the valuable resources of the 1946 Act and the long experience of its working, and after the way in which parts of it have been incorporated in subsequent Acts. We cannot accept the doctrine that it is impossible to devise a method of defining the central core activities of the Board to enable them to be excluded from the operations of the Bill. It is unbelievable. Therefore, we set about finding a definition ourselves, and I think that our definition is quite a good one. If there are difficulties in it, it can be altered. But the Government contend that they have tried to get a formula and have found that it is beyond the capacity of themselves and of the parliamentary draftsmen. That makes us all the more suspicious.
The hon. Gentleman says that he is asking us to leave this matter to the good sense of the Minister. That is a most damning argument. I need say no more. The case rests. All he is saying is that we should leave the question of how these Clauses are to be operated against the Board to the good sense of the Minister.

Mr. Stainton: rose—

Mr. Foot: I do not want to lose the support of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge on this matter, so I am being carefully restrained in my remarks. Someone said that in Committee sometimes I was sweetly reasonable


and at other times I was irascibly reasonable. No one denied that I was reasonable throughout. On this occasion I am attempting to be sweetly reasonable, although hon. Members opposite may not be able to notice the difference. Later in our proceedings I shall see whether the other method will work. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene I will give way to him because we hope to have his support in the Lobby.

Mr. Stainton: That does not necessarily follow, of course. The point which I want to make—and it is a very pertinent point—is that somebody must run the Coal Board in the meantime and in future.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is a good deal more cryptic than he has been on other occasions. Of course the Coal Board must be run. The hon. Gentleman is genuine in his desire to ensure that the Board is allowed to get on with the job. I cannot say the same of the occupants of the Government Front Bench. They have not given any

evidence to show that they wish the Board to get on with the job. If they wanted the Board to get on with the job, Clauses 6, 7 and 8 would never have figured in the Bill.

I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendments because if they were carried, the central core activities as defined by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge would be excluded from the depredations of hon. Members opposite. That would leave for discussion later the other ways in which we seek to protect the activities of the Board. But first let us protect the main business of the Coal Board. After all the time we have spent on the Bill, we should not forget that the Government have said that it is beyond their capacity to define the central core activities of the Board. They cannot do it, so they should let the House do it for them.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 222.

Division No. 215.]
AYES
[8.22 p.m.


Albu, Austen
English, Michael
Lawson, George


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Fred
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Leonard, Dick


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Michael
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Barnes, Michael
Forrester, John
McBride, Neil


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Golding, John
MacPherson, Malcolm


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cant, R. B.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marquand, David


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John


Conlan, Bernard
Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn, Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cronin, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
John, Brynmor
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Murray, R. K.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ogden, Eric


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Halloran, Michael


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Malley, Brian


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lamond, James
Pavitt, Laurie


Ellis, Tom
Latham, Arthur
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred




Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pentland, Norman
Spriggs, Leslie
Wallace, George


Prescott, John
Stallard, A. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Price, William (Rugby)
Steel, David
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Whitlock, William


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roper, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Torney, Tom



Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Julius
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Skinner, Dennis
Wainwright, Edwin
Mr. William Hamling.


Small, William






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger


Balniel, Lord
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Molyneaux, James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gray, Hamish
Money, Ernie


Bell, Ronald
Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper


Biffen, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bowden, Andrew
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Neave, Airey


Bray, Ronald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Normanton, Tom


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Havers, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bryan, Paul
Hay, John
Osborn, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Holland, Phillip
Pounder, Rafton


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holt, Miss Mary
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Churchill, W. S.
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Coombs, Derek
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Redmond, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Critchley, Julian
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Curran, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kinsey, J. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dixon, Piers
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Drayson, G. B.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sharples, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eden, Sir John
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Simeons, Charles


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McLaren, Martin
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Soref, Harold


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Spence, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fowler, Norman
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray
Sutcliffe, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter







Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Tebbit, Norman
Waddington, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Temple, John M.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christpher


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walters, Dennis



Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Trew, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Tugendhat, Christopher
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Keith Speed.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Kinnock: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 5, line 3, leave out from 'direction' to end of line and insert:
'and such report shall be supplied to the trade unions representative of the workpeople employed by the Board and its subsidiaries not later than seven days after it has been submitted to the Secretary of State'.
The Amendment has two very straightforward purposes. The first is to delete from subsection (3) the phrase
… or such shorter period as he"—
the Secretary of State—
may specify.
Its purpose is obviously to restrict the powers which the Secretary of State intends to take upon himself in the Bill by requiring the Board to submit a report within 12 months or a shorter period.
My fear is a fear shared by my hon. Friends on this side of the House and by my coalmining constituents and their families throughout the country, that under the Clause, if taken in conjunction with Clause 7(5)—lines 32 to 35 on page 5—the Secretary of State is provided with the weaponry for a quick kill, for the very swift and painful dispatch of a profitable subsidiary with a minimum of fuss and parliamentary intervention.
One could be guilty of exaggeration, such is the import of the Bill. But taking the time scales involved, we can see four weeks in which the specified "shorter period" could be satisfied under subsection (3), another few weeks for notice under Clause 7 to be given that the Secretary of State, after receipt of a report, intends to make moves to hive off part of the National Coal Board's assets, and then a brief but painful steamrollering through Parliament of the legislation empowering the Secretary of State to hive off. If anyone were to argue that things cannot be steamrollered through Parliament, I would ask what the purpose of a majority is.
Since Clauses 6 and 7 owe their inspiration in toto to a dogmatic belief in the efficacy of free enterprise, the Secretary of State and his Whips would have little difficulty in gaining the assent of their side of the House to undertake this killing of the most profitable sections of the N.C.B. and its assets. The subsidiaries, in that short period—within a few months —may be transformed from fruitful contributors to the Board, meeting Board obligations, into hived off honeypots for private enterprise. That would be the greatest transformation from Beauty into Beast since Snow White, I think it was, was turned into a frog. As long as the phrase
or such shorter period as he may specify
remains in the subsection, doubts about the honesty of the Government's intentions and about their regard for democracy must remain. The phrase confers the right upon the Secretary of State to be a two-bit second hand industrial salesman.
I hope that the Secretary of State sees the extensive power conferred upon him by the Clause as a right which he will wish to surrender in the interests of commonsense, of economy and of democracy.
The second purpose of the Amendment is to require the Secretary of State to submit the Board's report which he will be entitled to receive to the scrutiny of the workers most affected by the hiving-off procedure. Those workers in those subsidiary concerns are concerned to a greater extent than are the Government, the Parliament or the taxpayer with the implications to themselves, their families and their future security of the hiving-off of the profitable sections of the Board's assets.
The report system as outlined in the Clause is little short of a show trial, an elaborate procedure to get the Government's dirty work done. The least we can ask in this novel circumstance is that the employees of the threatened profitable


subsidiaries have the opportunity at the show trial of sitting on the jury.
The importance of the rôle of the trade unions in this procedure is emphasised by the fact that we are not talking about some insignificant little market stall but about the most profitable sections of a vast industry, sections which amount to about 15 per cent. of the Board's business, 15 per cent. of a vast industry, 15 per cent. which the Government had undertaken in a dogmatic, doctrinaire fashion to nibble at, as the years passed, as a mouse would nibble at a choice cheese.
Judging by the experience of recent months and by some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite today, they are mice with the appetites of rats, because it would seem that the Bill imposes no restriction. Once the tumbrel starts rolling for these profitable sections of the Board's activities, there would seem to be little to prevent the greed of private enterprise and of hon. Members opposite from being satisfied until the last vestige of these profitable subsidiaries has been removed from the Board's influence.
Earlier today, on Second Reading and at frequent intervals in Committee, the Minister for Industry and other hon. Members opposite have said that we should not over-emphasise possible dangers in the Bill. The Under-Secretary said earlier that we should not be frightened by the implications of the Bill. On Second Reading the Minister for Industry said this:
Since it is nearly a quarter of a century after nationalisation, it is absolutely right that we should now take stock of the point that has been reached.
The Minister also said that the decision to hive off sections of the Board's activities would be taken only
after full consultation with the Chairman of the Board"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 1484.]
and that only then would the Secretary of State be in a position to use the powers provided under Clause 7.
It appears that it will all be peace and light; there is nothing vicious or doctrinaire about this; it is all in the interests of everything that is held to be good, right and fulsome in the morality and opinion of the Tory Party.
It will not work like that. If we get down to fundamentals and ask ourselves

on what basis the Secretary of State would in the first place require a report, we have only the Minister's statement that he would ask only because the Board has been in existence for
nearly a quarter of a century";
and presumably some vague figment of his imagination would lead him to think that this would be a proper time to take stock. That is not a guarantee that can convince anyone with an interest in the coal-mining industry. It is not a guarantee that can convince anyone who holds the interests of the National Coal Board at heart. It is certainly not a guarantee that will convince those on this side. It is not enough to say, as the Minister intimated, that by some divine inspiration or because of his discriminating judgment we can take for granted that it is now an appropriate time to take stock.
What it really boils down to is that when the time is felt to be right, when the fruit is ripe, the Government will begin to pick the profitable sections of the National Coal Board off the tree. If they were honest enough to admit that this is the purpose of Clauses 6 and 7 they would at least gain some respect for their honesty; but they are so ashamed of the proposed grand larceny of hiving-off these sections of the economy that they will not admit it.
If we go to the next stage of the show trial beyond the point where the Secretary of State, under inspiration from above, has decided that the time has come to ask the Board to submit to him the report for which he can call unless this Amendment is accepted, which is possibly a very vague possibility—[Interruption.]

Mr. Skeet: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kinnock: I am glad the hon. Gentleman in his honesty again agrees from the other side. The fact is it could be less than 12 months, and dangers attach themselves to the right of the Secretary to have this power, to which I drew attention earlier. He can then give directions and the Board has four weeks from the time of notice in which to object. If the Board objects the objections can be steamrollered, flattened, by the exercise of a Parliamentary majority until the last stage comes and it is selling-off day. Bingo! the most profitable sections are hived-off.


I would like by inserting this Amendment to establish, between the stage at which the Minister receives this report and begins to act upon it, the right of the trade unions to take and scrutinise the basis of the report for which he has asked; because it is these trade unions and their members who are most closely concerned with the affairs of the companies that would be hived-off. In the name, I believe, of commonsense and true judgment at this point in technological development, at this point in our economic history, it is appropriate for a Government from either side to take workers from any industry into their confidence; and when such a monumental decision is being made as to divest a nationalised board of its most profitable sectors the least a Government can do is to take trade union representatives into their confidence and submit their governmental opinions to the scrutiny of men who work in those industries so that possibly their opinions will be enlightened even if their purposes can be diverted.
I would have liked to have gone further and made a direct advocacy of an extension of industrial democracy. I realise, however, that the last kind of person to embrace this expansion of democracy will be a Tory Minister. Therefore, I submit what I consider to be a reasonable and moderate Amendment requiring that the Secretary of State will submit his report within seven days to examination by trade unions representative of the work people.

Mr. Swain: I must congratulate my hon. Friend. I have been here for 12 years and that is the best speech I have ever heard made from the Liberal Bench. The sound commonsense of this Amendment is paramount in the point that the National Coal Board, along with the trade unions, set up long ago consultative machinery.
8.45 p.m.
The consultative committees operate with the Coal Board at every pit in the country and when a pit is in financial trouble the high management of the Board makes a special journey to meet the consultative committee and tell it of the financial position. Funnily enough, this only happens when the pit is to be put on the jeopardy list or when it is in

serious financial trouble. Management does not go down and explain things when the pit is doing very well.
If the Board has the right to go to the consultative machinery, representing the three main recognised unions in the industry when finances are down, then it has as much right to meet those trade union representatives when part of the pit or the industry is making a profit. If the consultative machinery is to operate with a modicum of success, as it has done since nationalisation, then more stress has to be put upon the consultative committees. I hope that the Minister will look at this. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) can say "No". I am pleased, and I imagine that the country is pleased too, that the hon. Member is not a Minister because the House would have sunk to a very low level indeed. I therefore address my remarks to the Minister. —[Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to cheer I will give him a ticket for the Tottenham match on Saturday.
We are pleased with our consultative machinery because it is a model of its kind, regardless of its shortcomings and the difficulties experienced in the initial period. It plays a major part in the continuity of production and in looking after the welfare of the men and their families. I consider it to be the responsibility of the Board and the Minister, when the review has been conducted, to inform those who represent the men about what is happening.
Some of the undertakings of the Coal Board will be sold off to the large enterprises which will not be buying the undertakings for what they are but for the order book of the organisation. Then that small section will be closed down. This has happened on hundreds of occasions in my constituency and I am sure that all other hon. Members have seen this terrible disease affecting their constituencies. The trade unions must be called in. and the question of potential closure of potential expansion must be discussed seriously at all levels.
I hope that the Minister will give a favourable reply to the Amendment. Despite what has been said about trade unions by his hon. Friend in Committee on the Industrial Relations Bill, I hope that the Minister realises the value of consultation with the trade unions and


will accept the Amendment in the spirit in which it was moved.

Mr. Skinner: I am rather sad at having to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) in a different strain. I realise that he has been away from the colliery for some time and many changes have taken place. I remember the time when my hon. Friend was secretary of a large trade union branch in Derbyshire and sat on the consultative committee wielding a great deal of bargaining power. Since he came to the House in 1959 several things have happened. We were saddled with an industry which was very different. The bargaining went, and with it went our ability to advance arguments at the consultative meetings.
I read the Amendment as saying that the trade union representatives should be the people to whom the Secretary of State should report. During the past 10 or 12 years men have, naturally, lost their faith in the ability of the consultative meetings to put forward their views. It is not the consultative meetings we want the Secretary of State to report to, but the trade union representatives, which means at the national level of the N.U.M. and the other unions associated with the mining industry, and also at area and branch level. In that way we could get the extension of the industrial democracy to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) referred. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Kelley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on the Amendment, which strikes at the root of the intention behind Clause 6. If it is intended that investigations shall be made, the people who are on the spot and who know about the financial and commercial aspects of the undertaking in which they are involved should be consulted at all levels.
The consultative machinery in the coal-mining industry is not what a lot of people think it is. Usually what happens is that the management at some high level makes up its mind that a certain thing shall be adopted or plan put into operation and on a Tuesday afternoon the management meets a group of representatives of the men employed in the industry at various levels and in various trades and says, "This is what we have

decided to do. Think about it." That is what they call "consultation". I do not think it has changed a great deal, as has been emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
We want the trade unions to be made aware of these matters before any decision is made either by the Coal Board or by the Minister. We want them to be fully acquainted with the findings of the inquiry and with the Secretary of State's intentions, and wish them to be told what the Board is preparing to do. This is an important matter, not only because we might have some financial geniuses among the ordinary mining folk—though I do not think there are many—but because those are the people who are involved in the social consequences of any decision that might be taken as a result of investigations which Clause 6 empowers the Secretary of State to make.
The social consequences of taking over a non-colliery activity, that is to say something ancillary to the industry, might mean a large number of people in that community being rendered unemployed, because most people who buy these activities will really be buying them to close them down. They will buy them because they are their competitors, rather than because they want to continue the industrial activity involved. In my view, the first duty of the Secretary of State, after the examination has been completed, is to report fully to the local consultative committee so that the matter can be discussed at the level where it ought to be discussed so as to provide some semblance of industrial democracy.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: We should all look closely at the meaning of this Amendment. My hon. Friend seeks to give the impression to the Secretary of State that it is essential that workers' representatives should be made aware of all the faults and all the successes in the undertaking in which an examination is taking place. I emphasised in Committee time and again that we should look at Clause 6 on its own and forget about Clause 7. The Government spokesmen wanted the Opposition to forget about what would happen after reports had been called for.
I am wondering whether it will be wise for us to adopt that course. Let us try to get at the Government's intentions. We


shall probably come to the conclusion that the Government are not at the moment particularly bothered about Clause 7 and want to find out what faults exist in a particular undertaking to see what can be done to make it more viable and successful. If that were the case I would not mind; but one knows that the fundamental aim behind the calling for reports is to sell off to their friends the successful undertakings and those that are not too successful can stay with the National Coal Board.
9.0 p.m.
I suggest to the Secretary of State and the Minister that he should press for an understanding between employees' representatives and managements about how to make undertakings more viable. The Secretary of State should make certain that there is closer and better liaison between employees and managements. Obviously the way to do that is to accept the Amendment. It would mean that trade union representatives would be made aware of the particulars of undertakings and would thereby be enabled to help managements.
If the Minister responsible is not willing to accept the Amendment, it means that he is not interested in better industrial relations, any more than he is interested in creating a better understanding between employees and managements. The Government's sole interest lies in one objective, which is to sell off those undertakings about which they have obtained information and which are bound to be successful. If that is so, once again we shall be made aware of the way in which this Government want to take the plums and leave non-viable parts of industries to be looked after by the State. They have proposed doing that with sections of Rolls-Royce, and now they seek to do it with sections of the Coal Board.
We have heard no word of dissent from the Minister. Indeed, he does not appear to be taking much interest in our discussions. His mind is made up. When he conies to reply to the debate, it will become plain that it is not this Clause which matters. What is more important is Clause 7, which will give to the Government's friends some of the plums which should remain with the State.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) moved this

Amendment with his usual attractive flair. We had references to beauty and the beast, to frogs, to mice, and to rats—

Mr. Kinnock: I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not take them personally.

Mr. Ridley: I did not take them personally, but I would have preferred the hon. Gentleman to apply those epithets to me than to private enterprise, which is what he intended.
If I may, I will bring the House back to the Amendments, which are of a slightly different nature from the wide-ranging philosophical discussions which the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) ended by rehearsing.
The Amendment is in two parts. The first provides that the Secretary of State should not have power to call for the report in a period of less than 12 months. It is possible that only a limited report would be called for or that it might be considered that the report could be done in a period of less than 12 months, and we must resist the suggestion that it will be unnecessary to have the power to call for the report in less than 12 months. The Secretary of State will make sure that the period allowed for the report is a reasonable one—reasonable, that is, in the eyes of the Coal Board as well as those of the Secretary of State. But, if it is agreed by all concerned that it is possible to do it in a shorter period, I see no harm in allowing the Secretary of State power to call for it in a shorter period.
I do not feel that the burden of the case rests on that part of the Amendment. It rests on the second part, which deals with consultation with the trade unions.
I do not think that anyone could accuse my hon. Friend of not having had frequent contact with the trades unions in this industry, as indeed this Government have had with trades unions in all industries where relevant business is being conducted which concerns the unions. It will certainly be my hon. Friend's intention, as in the past, to keep in touch with the unions on any matters which they wish to raise.
I must point out that it would not be right for this report to be given to the unions for the reason urged upon us in


the debate on the previous Amendment: that the report will contain confidential information and therefore no-one should be allowed to see it.
My hon. Friend has given many specific assurances in Committee—I refer to three of them at columns 430, 431 and 466; I will not weary the House by quoting them—that confidential information will not be released where it should not be. It would not be right for the report to be given to the unions or to anyone else, and it certainly will not be.
I do not wish to cross swords with the spirit underlying the speeches of the hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley), Dearne Valley and, indeed, Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain). I think that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was wrong in suggesting that the Secretary of State should make a report to the unions. In fact, it is proposed that the Coal Board should make a report to the Secretary of State. I think that the hon. Gentleman got it mixed up.

Mr. Ogden: I should like to ask about a matter of information, not to express an opinion. The hon. Gentleman has referred throughout his comments in reply to "the report", "a report" and "this report". I understand that there are to be or could be a number of reports. It is not one report over twelve months; there will and can be a continuing series. Therefore, it is one of possibly and probably many reports.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I apologise if I gave the wrong impression. There could be one or more reports. I was perhaps using shorthand, which was not entirely accurate.
There is a great need for consultation, both between the Board and the unions and between the Government and the unions. We do not deny this. As the reviews proceed and decisions and actions are taken my hon. Friend will take every reasonable step to ensure that the N.U.M. is informed and consulted about the progress of the policy.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: One can understand the reticence of the Minister and the Government in giving a report of a confidential nature to trade unions. But surely the Minister understands that we are suspicious when an Amendment

passed in Committee to bring reports to this House by an affirmative Resolution is attempted to be changed by the Government on Report.

Mr. Ridley: I hat is another Amendment. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that he is not being entirely accurate in his interpretation of an Amendment which is to be discussed later. However, I do not wish to stray into that now.
I assure the House that at the right time and in the right way there will be consultation with the unions I feel sure that on consideration the hon. Member for Bedwellty will not wish us to give confidential documents of this kind to the unions. I think that it would be better if the Amendment was not pressed.

Mr. Varley: We certainly take the point that commercial confidences need to be protected when calling for a report. As the Minister said in Committee, on many occasions we had to draw to the attention of the Government the fact that in many respects, by the provisions in the Bill, they were, as it were, putting commercial confidences in jeopardy. I think that would prove to be so if some of these powers were exercised. But the Under-Secretary's answer was very timid, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) did the House a service by exploring this matter.
There are two aspects to be considered. Superficially, a case can be made out for calling for a report on a subsidiary activity of the Coal Board and deciding at that stage that it would be improper to reveal that information or pass it on to the union concerned. That would be all right, providing that the Government were acquiring the information only for their own purposes. But if, as a result of the review, they decided to hive off an asset, it is essential that the unions and the people in the industry should know exactly what the criteria are.
So there are the commercial confidences which must be retained if the Government are not to act; on the other hand, if they are going to hive off, the N.U.M. and the other unions should be told. I should have thought that this was in strict accord with what the Government have said they will do. After the General Election, we were told from the steps of


10 Downing Street that there was to be more open government, that they would set the people free, and open the corridors of power so that people could see exactly what was happening.
The mining industry is going through a very difficult period. It was the last Government's aim to see how far they could create an industry with a long-term viable future, but to do this one essential is the absolute co-operation of the men who work in the industry. If the Government do not achieve that, if they give the impression—as the Under-Secretary did tonight—that these reports are so confidential that they are no business of the unions, they will not win that cooperation. Their only chance is to be open with the unions and let them have the information which it is proper for them to have.

Mr. Kelley: Does my hon. Friend agree that full consultation should be possible with the addition of one or two words? If the Government cannot accept the Amendment, could they not agree that the report by the Board shall be submitted to the Secretary of State within 12 months of his relevant direction, in consultation with those employed in the industry, or within such shorter period as he may specify?

Mr. Varley: It would have been possible for the Government to bring forward an Amendment of their own to cover this point, but it is essential, if the industry is to thrive and continue to be successful, for the Government to provide information to the unions.
I do not know my hon. Friend's intention on this Amendment—no doubt he is considering the matter—but its intention is one which we support.

Mr. Kinnock: The Under-Secretary said that a report could be done in less than 12 months. I agree. Then what is the necessity for the Secretary of State to specify a shorter period? That question has not been answered satisfactorily.
It might be the Secretary of State's intention to keep in touch with the unions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions—and so is the road to hiving off. As to confidentiality, industrial spies do not come from the ranks of the trade

union movement. As in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) pointed to the growth in industrial espionage. We will not find many trade unionists in the ranks of those who indulge in this practice.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I recently came across an interesting pamphlet about spies in industry. It was issued by an organisation called Complete Security Services Ltd. and spoke of:
The supplying of undercover agents—a man planted among your employees to provide you with a complete appraisal of any unauthorised happenings… following of vehicles used by employees during… their work… investigating of thefts, frauds and embezzlement. Reporting on any person who may be suspected of causing dissension or inciting employees to defection. The screening of prospective employees—a search into their antecedents and background.
The pamphlet added that
one of the Directors of Complete Security Services was no other than Mr. L. Robert Carr".

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which describes the initiative, enterprise, independence and uprightness of those who are anxious to safeguard the interests of industry. I cannot imagine those extensive services being provided by the N.U.M. or any similar union.
If more attention had been paid to the opinions and advice of the workers employed by the N.C.B. in the past, I have no doubt that many of the difficulties which occurred in the last 25 years would not have been encountered. Unfortunately, a great deal of the sincere advice that has been offered has received cryptic replies. Indeed, a slogan among the miners in my part of the world refers to the nationalised industry as in some ways being like the same team in different jerseys.
I had hoped that the Secretary of State would take this opportunity to extend the cause of democracy. I did not expect that he would do so. It is obvious that democracy will have to tread water until the next General Election, when I hope that the party opposite will be drowned. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

FURTHER POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO THE BOARD.

Mr. Varley: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 16, at end insert:
Provided further that any such direction in respect of the interests of the Board or any of them in gas and/or oil in the seas surrounding the British Isles shall give a right of preemption to the Gas Council.
We regard this Amendment as particularly important. Under Clause 7 as it stands the Secretary of State may direct the N.C.B. to dispose of any of its assets. In Committee we moved an Amendment which would have prevented the Secretary of State from disposing of the Board's North Sea gas activities. Unfortunately, and we believe shortsightedly, the Government did not accept our proposal on that occasion.
Although we gather that there is no criticism of the way in which the N.C.B. conducts its North Sea activities, the Minister appears to insist that it is necessary for the Government to retain these powers in the Bill.
In Committee we discussed the whole question of the hiving off of these North Sea gas activities and, at that stage, there was some confusion, which I hope the Minister will clarify today. For example, we are not sure whether it would require the 1966 Act to be repealed if the N.C.B. were asked to dispose of its North Sea gas activities, or whether it could be done under Clause 7. We think that the 1966 Act would not need to be repealed and that it would only be necessary for the Secretary of State to issue a direction under Clause 7.
For doctrinaire reasons the Government want to prevent the National Coal Board from pursuing its North Sea gas activities. The Government have many times demonstrated that they are prejudiced against the Board's being involved in those activities, and we believe that at some stage it will be instructed to get rid of them. I know that the Minister for Industry has not said as much. He has talked about calling for a review, but I think that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) believes that the Board should be instructed to get rid of

those activities, and that his view is shared by many of his hon. Friends. So we have a contrast, with Ministers playing this down—softly, softly—and backbenchers wanting them to go ahead. I think that in his heart the Minister wants to be able at least to put the Secretary of State in a position where he can give that instruction.
Therefore, the Amendment seeks to ensure that if the Secretary of State issues a direction under the Clause for the Board to get out of North Sea gas, this valuable asset will be retained in public ownership and the Gas Council will have the first chance to acquire it. There is nothing outrageous in that suggestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) moved an Amendment in Committee that would have prevented the Secretary of State disposing of any of the Board's assets and undertakings to a private or public organisation of a foreign nation. The Minister for Industry turned that suggestion down. But we all know that many people and organisations have their eyes on the Board's profitable ancillaries, and none is more attractive than its North Sea gas interests.
We are told that about 24 holes have been drilled in the North Sea, and surveys have been carried out in other waters around our coast. It would serve no useful purpose to go into the minute detail of these activities, but it cannot be denied that the discoveries so far are highly profitable and extremely valuable to the nation. The Secretary of State can direct the Board to dispose of its interests, and if he did there would be no shortage of bidders. Plenty of people want to get their hands on this valuable asset.
Both on Second Reading and in Committee there have been references to Mr. James Poole's article in the Sunday Times of 29th November. 1970, the rag-bag of riches article, as it has come to be known by members of the Committee. Mr. Poole said, for example, that the Dutch State Mines would be vigorous bidders for the Board's North Sea assets. That would certainly be so.
All that the Amendment seeks to do is to make it absolutely certain that if a direction is given to the Board under the Clause to get rid of its North Sea gas activities and its activities off our coasts, those activities should at least go to the Gas Council.


It would be deplorable if a direction were given. We understand that there is no criticism of the Board and the way in which it engages in those activities along with its partners. But if that deplorable directive were given—and many people suggest that it will—it should go to the Gas Council, which is also involved in the North Sea operations, so that this valuable asset remains in public ownership.

Mr. Skeet: We spoke extensively on this topic in Committee and I do not intend to repeat what I said there. I have, however, one or two what I hope will be helpful observations.
First, the Gas Council is working in conjunction with the Gulf Oil Corporation and with the Continental Oil Company. Obviously, when they entered this agreement, they may have made arrangements for what might happen if one side sold its interest to another. Obviously, if that is a contractual obligation, they will be bound by it. Therefore, it may be that the interest would have to go back from the N.C.B. to Continental or Gulf, or pay full market considerations.
The other point is that the Gas Council should not be pre-empted, because we have to ascertain the true market value, and the only way that that can be established is on the open market. If the Gas Council is to be allowed pre-emption, how are we to assess the market value? The reserves of the Viking field may well be known, but National Coal Board-Conoco made a discovery the other day and the reserves have not been ascertained. How is the value to be ascertained? If bidders all round come forward, one will be able to ascertain the market value and one will be able to get the highest bid. The whole thing should be put aside for a bid, the proceeds of which would be useful for the expansion of the National Coal Board's facilities.

Mr. Dan Jones: Why sell it at all?

Mr. Skeet: Because the National Coal Board will have to provide at least £25 million for development, and as it is running at a considerable loss, I cannot see how it will be able to do so. It would be better if, instead of trying to provide that £25 million, it sold the asset and used the proceeds to pay for some of its

losses, or, as I said in Committee, went ahead with coal research, which I very much favour.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said that Dutch State Mines may be coming in as a bidder. That was argued in Committee. It was said that it might come in as bidder for Nypro Limited, which is a producer of caprolactam. As I understand it, what happens in Holland is that the State has a right to intervene if a production licence has to be granted. It may intervene for a certain percentage. Would the Gas Council be likely to intervene in such a case? I think not. The Gas Council is so heavily committed and has so vast an expenditure that it would be glad to dispose of an asset which is now held by N.C.B.-Conoco.
The most practical line is not to give any pre-emption to the Gas Council but to hold the asset over for the open market to ascertain the true market value, to dispose of the asset and to capitalise the funds needed for research and any other activities which may be essential to the National Coal Board.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ogden: Both the Ministers who have taken part in these debates have given the impression of being if not helpless at least harmless. They have tried to give the impression that of course they want to help the industry and are reasonable men. But immediately they give such an impression and it has seemed almost plausible, up pops the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) to destroy all their arguments. If the Ministers quail at anything said in this House, it is more likely to be a remark from the hon. Member for Bedford than anything said by us. But I prefer a Tory to be a Tory rather than posing as a "LibLab". I make no complaint. But I want to put on record that the hon. Member for Bedford has blurted out what we fear. He has confirmed the fears we have held all along. I do not intend to go into the arguments which he put forward.
However, I ask the House to do something very difficult. This is a reserve Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) put it forward very reasonably and explained the reasons for it very carefully. Let us


try to assume that this is the first time in the last nine months that anyone has talked about the Coal Board and hiving-off operations. Let us give the Minister a fresh start and try to forget temporarily everything said on this issue. Will the Minister accept that the activities and interests of the Coal Board in North Sea gas and in drilling operations in the Irish Sea are an extension of its technical operations on land?

Mr. Skeet: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ogden: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that because it was accepted by the former Member for South Fylde, who had extensive coal mining operations. The Coal Board was led into this activity as a result of its interest in underground mining and drilling on land.

Mr. Skeet: If this were simply an extension of mining at sea, I could understand that the Board would be regarded as an operator. But it has gone in with an oil company in the operations in the Bristol Channel and in the North Sea and the oil company is the operator and does the drilling. Therefore, it is not an extension of the Board's normal facilities.

Mr. Ogden: I am aware of what the Board has done. I am suggesting that this is a natural extension of what it has done for a long time. It has carried out inshore operations and then offshore operations and now it is carrying out operations on the Continental Shelf.
This is not of itself a nationalised undertaking. This is a partnership in operations in the North Sea and the Irish Sea between a nationalised industry and a private industry. The nationalised part of the operation in both the North Sea and the Irish Sea is a minority holding. This is not a 51 per cent. Government holding in a private organisation, as is the case with Shell-B.P., Rolls-Royce or B.O.A.C. The partnership came into being because two sets of people—private enterprise and public enterprise—with their own special skills and resources, decided that it would be better if they could work together. This is a straightforward extension of a practical industrial operation. I do not think the Minister will disagree with that.
Although the Coal Board is in an industry which provides power should it be concerned only with solid fuel and not with any other kind of energy? If so, the Minister might fall back on another nationalised industry, again operating in a minority partnership. He surely cannot deny that the gas boards have an interest in natural gas or in a raw material, oil, for making gas. If he rejects this Amendment he will deny the Coal Board the chance of operating profitably, and he will be saying that the gas boards shall be only a means of distributing offshore gas.
One of the reasons why we find it very hard to trust what the Government say is that no one knows who is the master in the Department. Is it the Secretary of State, who, we are told by means of well-defined "leaks", is in favour of the kind of partnership, albeit a minority partnership, which has been in operation between the nationalised industries and private enterprise in the North Sea; or are the masters the Minister for Industry and the Under-Secretary of State? If we say that we can seldom or never believe the Minister, he must understand that there are a number of good reasons why we should not.
I ask the Minister to be careful in his reply because, assuming all the difficulties which I have put forward, this is as good a test case as any of the true intentions of the Minister and of who is the master in his own house.

Mr. Peter Hardy: This important Amendment illustrates the considerable gulf existing at present, especially between the parties, and it is considerable evidence that there is much dangerous thinking on the Conservative benches.
I now understand why John Bunyan was put in prison. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) clearly demonstrated that he and some of his colleagues on the Government back benches quite recklessly regard profit in private hands as something to be unfettered and which counts for top priority. They regard it as virtuous. They do not always seem mindful of the national interest which inspires the Opposition Amendment.
There may be nothing ignoble about a reasonable return on investment, especially if it is from a very honourable and


legitimate activity. No one can argue that the National Coal Board's investment in the North Sea at present is dishonourable or illegitimate. What concerns hon. Members opposite is, not that it is dishonourable or illegitimate, but that the returns on that investment are likely to be considerable, and, what is more important, comparatively imminent; and they see rich pickings.
Many arguments were advanced in Committee about the need to defend the national interests in respect of the Board's assets. They have been largely ignored. But it is clear that there is considerable interest among the Conservative Party and its supporters in getting hold of some of the rich assets of the Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) made it clear that if the Government are determined to hive off the N.C.B.'s North Sea assets, which are perhaps the choicest assets in the N.C.B.'s possession, they should be reposited only in the hands of the Gas Council and no one else.
There are perhaps five basic reasons in support of that idea. First, the public would then be assured that there would be no cut price, under-cover deal adversely affecting the national interest. There is a great deal of suspicion among the public, especially in the constituencies which many of us present on this side of the House represent. If the Government decide to hive of the N.C.B.'s assets to private enterprise, then my people, certainly in South Yorkshire—I speak for one part of South Yorkshire, and I do not know whether my hon. Friend will give me permission to speak for Don Valley in this connection—would suspect the Government of giving favours to those who have supported them so abundantly in the past. It would be wrong of the Government to cause that suspicion to be aroused and intensified. They should, for at least a moment, end the state of political trigger-happiness with which they seem to have been imbued since the General Election. They should say, "This is one example where national interest must count more than our party's interest."
The Government should demonstrate that there are no grounds for the suspicions of the ordinary people of Britain as regards the Conservative Party and its approach to the nationalised industries.

The second reason is that we could make is clear that we believe in a fair arrangement of our economy, that public enterprises should receive identical and proportional investment to that being received by private enterprise in the same sphere. This would be the case in the North Sea.
Another important reason not yet touched on and very relevant, which the Minister might consider commenting upon, is that there has been no sign of disharmony in the relationships which have existed between the National Coal Board and its private enterprise partners in North Sea development. If the relationships are happy and cordial, and if there is satisfactory progress and development, no interference is justified.
There is good reason why the Board and these organisations should get on well. After all, they have a great deal in common. Some of the private oil companies have coal interests. The Board and private oil companies alike are large, important and diversified commercial industrial and economic concerns. It is reasonable that they should be on good terms and work together happily. As they seem to be doing so, the Government should leave them well alone and not interfere.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman has said that certain oil companies have coal interests. I admit this. Would it not be reasonable to expect the reverse, namely, that oil companies should have a right to invest in British coal?

Mr. Hardy: Once again, the hon. Gentleman illustrates that he is not greatly interested in British activity and in protecting British interests; because the companies that I had in mind as having mining interests have had plenty to do with bringing the standards in the mining industry in places like America and Europe up to the very high standard which the Board has achieved in Britain.
I do not know whether the Minister has received any application from Continental Oil or Gulf Oil to invest in British mining. The National Union of Mineworkers would have a certain interest in any such application.
The Board cannot be criticised for the way in which it has carried out its mining operations, despite all the restraints


it has laboured under as a result of Conservative policy in the 1950s.
If the Government wish to hive off some of the Board's activities, two other points are important. There is the fact that the Board can be expected to arrange its affairs with the expectation of rich rewards coming in from October 1972. If the Government say to the Board, "We want a report on your activities in the North Sea", and if that report comes in in 6, 9 or 12 months time, the imminence of profits would be very close and it would be hardly fair to put the Board into a position where it had to scramble to get out of its North Sea operations before the rewards started to roll in.
A final reason, which is even more important, is that if an interest were to be taken from the Board and it did not go to the Gas Council, the great probability is that the principal bidders would be foreign concerns. I believe that it is in the national interest that the Board should retain the assets, in view of the imminence of profits and in view of the importance of this resource for strategic reasons.
In the past overseas concerns were given too great a share in the development of the North Sea potential. For example, in 1962 during the first round of negotiations the Conservative Government gave over 70 per cent. of the opportunity to foreign concerns. West Germany, in pre-Brandt days, kept a very much greater share of its part of North Sea oil and gas extraction in West German hands. The 1962 Conservative Government allowed this very important strategic resource to be under foreign control. After the 1964 election the Labour Government rectified this imbalance. I believe it would be extremely dangerous if the Government in their petty, partisan attitude towards the Board were to compel the Board to surrender its resources and thus sacrifice the national interest.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Gower: I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether it could not be said that in the early days they were getting 70 per cent. of the risk as well?

Mr. Hardy: That is probably the case although before Britain was involved in negotiations and licences were issued it was perfectly clear to any skilled geologist

that somewhere in the North Sea there were rich and abundant rewards to be found. The vital point I would make in answer to that made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), that the National Coal Board were not exactly drilling the holes, is that this may be the case but he should be aware that neither are the oil companies. This is usually done by specialist companies working on a contract basis. If the hon. Gentleman accept that it destroys one of his arguments.

Mr. Eadie: This point was dealt with at the Committee stage and it is appropriate that my hon. Friend should have been responsible to some extent for reopening the debate and making the House acquainted of the rather extreme views of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). He is an oil man who believes in extreme forms of private enterprise and the selling or hiving-off of profitable sections. During the Committee stage I mentioned that we had had the ridiculous situation of the Scottish people on one day enjoying the news by Press, radio and television of a great oil find off the coast of Aberdeen—and people like us who have been associated with the mining industry have always said that any new source of wealth found by the country must be a matter for enjoyment by the whole nation—and the next day learning to their amazement that probably they would never see that oil, that it would be landed in Holland or elsewhere.
An additional factor that emerged was that the oil that had been found was of a type that caused less pollution so that because of the different standard set for pollution in the United States of America that oil would in all probably be shipped to that country. Two new aspects now confront us. The first is that there has been a tremendous escalation in the price of oil. The hon. Member for Bedford will be disappointed to know that when I ask the library research staff to analyse trends of the tremendous increase in the price of oil it was found that it was increasing in price so rapidly that not even the library staff were able to keep up. We used to talk of coal being too dear to buy but now we are talking of oil being too dear to buy. The escalation in the price of oil has far outstripped anything experienced by


the British people up to the present time. We have to take heed of the defence strategy of this country, and of the necessity to build up our indigenous resources. The rise in the price of oil has resulted in coal becoming much more attractive.

Mr. Skeet: Until the recent rises roughly 50 per cent. of the cost of oil was taxed. There is no tax on coal, in fact the taxes are there to assist coal.

Mr. Eadie: To my astonishment, the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. The tax on oil was introduced, certainly to assist the coal industry, but also to raise social revenue and any Chancellor who decides to reduce that tax must find that revenue elsewhere. Even the oil moguls are getting worried about the rise in the price of oil.
In Committee we did not know that the Government were bringing out details of their plans for dealing with pollution. According to their White Paper vast capital sums will have to be earmarked to deal with pollution. If we have a valuable indigenous fuel source off our shores we will naturally want to control that source. The propositions put forward by my hon. Friends would safeguard such resources and would do something to make this country healthier and cleaner in future.

Mr. Kelley: We have explored this argument in Committee and in debates earlier today. What is likely to happen is that Government will take power to direct the Coal Board to conduct inquiries into its various activities described as "non-colliery activities" and then it will be left to the Government to prepare, with the Board, for the sale of certain commercial interests which are showing a profit. I wonder why the Government have not thought of trying to sell the Coal Board.

Mr. Skinner: I am interested in this point about there being no buyers for the Coal Board. While we on this side would possibly agree that a buyer would be difficult to find, there are some hon.

Members opposite, notably the right hon. Member for wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who have consistently put forward argument.

Mr. Kelley: I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, SouthWest (Mr. Powell), who is not present, would probably subscribe to the idea that the Coal Board should be sold to private enterprise, but I am suggesting that he would find no buyers, and nor would the Minister. Coal cannot be mined in any country at an economic price. The intention of the Clause is to enable the Government to sell profitable enterprises which the Government are using as a cushion against the rigours of the economic situation which they are not prepared to face. Considerable subsidies are being paid in continental Europe to the production of coal.
I regard it as part of my work in the House and in the movement to which I belong to make a solemn declaration that whoever may buy the stocks which are to be sold shall not benefit by a penny from what they have bought. We shall require our people to stand by that solemn undertaking.

Mr. Peter Rees: Does that undertaking apply also to the loss-making activities of the National Coal Board if the Coal Board is taken back into private ownership?

Mr. Kelley: I answer that question by saying that the Coal Board is up for sale. I do not think that any hon. Gentleman opposite believes in nationalisation, and the only reason the Coal Board is retained in public ownership is that nobody would buy it.

Mr. John Biffen: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that in commercial transactions loss-making activities are never sold? One has only to open the newspaper on any day of the week to see that loss-making activities can be disposed of.

Mr. Kelley: The loss-making activities of the Coal Board are highly doubtful. It is possible to make a profit if the right capital value is written down in the book—hon. Gentlemen opposite know the commercial practice better than I do. The colliery activities that have proved themselves in the commercial market are being sold because there are ready buyers.


North Sea gas will be a source of income to people who buy the stock, but it should be known that when we have the power to do so we shall take back those assets without a penny compensation.

Mr. Golding: I am pleased to hear that statement by my hon. Friend, as I am pleased to hear the Labour Party declaring itself on this subject. I have possibly a more direct interest in the telephone service, and I hope that it applies equally to that service also. I certainly hope it applies to the coal industry and all its other activities.
I wish to examine the rationalisations of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) because they represent the thinking of the Government. The argument they are using is that it would be better to take funds at present invested in North Sea gas—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Coal Industry Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hector Monro.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Golding: The Government's argument, as I understand it, is that it would be better to take the funds which are at present invested in North Sea gas and use them within the colliery activities. I find this hard to understand because the rate of return to be earned from North Sea gas investment must be very much higher than can be expected from investment in colliery activities. I would say, from a cursory knowledge of coalmining, that the limiting factor of colliery profitability is not investment. I imagine that at present the industry needs money, not so much for mechanisation, as to be able to pay its work force a reasonable wage. The industry needs money to work with local authorities and the Government towards removing the dereliction of the environment inflicted by the coalmining industry in the past.
I cannot understand the argument that, because an industry is contracting for technical reasons, activity should be confined to trying to protect that industry. Let me take several examples. I wonder

whether the hon. Member for Bedford had he been alive many years ago, would have gone to a Hackney carriage manufacturer and said to him, "Concentrate on Hackney carriages and leave somebody else, such as Henry Ford, to develop the car." That is the logic of the argument.
I remember just after the war economists—Tories among them—giving advice to Lancashire. The Lancashire cotton industry was facing a threat of chemicals and synthetics. The Tories did not go to the textile manufacturers and say, "There is a threat from outside—respond to it by putting more money into textiles". They said that the answer was obvious: "If you can't beat them, join them." The advice of every economist was that the cotton industry should diversify in its own interests and in the interests of its work people and of the localities in which the cotton mills were situated. And it is not only at that level that one gets diversification. There are rumours that the steel barons in the United States and Europe are considering going into plastics because they realise there will be a threat to the steel industry from the plastics industry. The answer is obvious: "If you can't beat them, join them."

Mr. Ogden: It does not apply to this House, does it?

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Who would want to join hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Golding: There are many courses of action I would advise, but that is the last piece of advice I would give to my hon. Friends.
We are faced with a contracting industry which has other problems to face. It is not only a contracting industry, but is concentrated geographically. We all know that there is an unemployment problem which is euphemistically called "redundancy" and which to a large extent is a problem flowing from the contracting of the mining industry. When we were talking a little earlier about redundancy payments, we were told from the Conservative benches that, because of inflation, the Government could not afford a little extra for redundant miners.
In a logical world, the leaders of the coal industry would see that their policy of rationalisation was putting men out of


work who could not find alternative employment. In a logical world, they would ask themselves where they could find sufficient wealth to keep their employees in comfort. They would not decide to concentrate on their own little patch and tell their men that they were unable to pay them enough because the industry could not afford it, nor would they tell their employees that they were unable to offer sufficient redundancy benefits to compensate them for the loss of their jobs.
The miners who are being declared redundant today are men who suffered unemployment in the 1930s. Theirs has been a very hard life, and it would do us all good to be able to look into the minds of workers who are forced to retire in this way. The industry is crying out for money, and that money could be obtained from what the Government call the Board's diversified interests. It could be obtained from the North Sea, for example, and it is the responsibility of the Government to see that it is obtained.
I have not sufficient knowledge to join the argument that we have heard about geological exploration. However, if the Coal Board is exploring the North Sea in an attempt to discover deposits of coal, surely the geologists engaged in that work have the skill to find oil. If they have that skill, the Board should utilise it. The situation in the gas industry is far better than that in the coal industry, and I would not like to see the Coal Board's interests in the North Sea handed over to the Gas Council. That would be a regrettable move, since it would take away one slight cushion from the contraction that is bound to occur and cause further hardship to our miners. At a time when the industry is about to make large profits on its investment of £5 million, it should be kept in public ownership. That is the nub of the argument.
We have heard suggestions and counter-suggestions about whether one hon. Member opposite is an oil man. I think that that is totally irrelevant. Behind him, the Minister has not one oil man. He has the whole City of London after him for pickings, and the Coal Board's North Sea activities are a picking.

Mr. Concannon: Shame!

Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend says "Shame". The mentality being shown by the Government is shameful. If they can dip their dirty fingers into the public purse they will do so. That is what we are debating tonight. We are debating whether the money earned by British industry should be distributed thinly amongst men taking home £12 or £13 a week or should be added to the already luxurious lives of a few who work —who do not work—in the City of London.
This has been clear over the last twelve months. The election of 18th June was fought over the issue of wealth. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. Of course they laugh. They are going to laugh all the way to the bank. While our lads cannot afford to live properly, the friends and relations of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be doing well out of the State and out of the Bill. They will prepare the way by Clause 6, but when it comes to Clause 7 —well, for the working classes, "Bonanza" is something which they see on television, but these lads opposite will have a bonanza the like of which has never been seen before.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Gower: I shall be brief. I had not intended to say anything on this Amendment, but the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has made some quite disgraceful suggestions. I hope the hon. Gentleman will ponder over them after he leaves this House tonight.
There are objective arguments for and against the Amendment. For the hon. Gentleman to make these unseemly, unsubstantiated, untrue suggestions is—

Mr. Biffen: Entertaining.

Mr. Gower: Entertaining, yes, but also unfortunate. I hope that very few hon. Gentlemen opposite will associate themselves with the kind of bunk which we have heard in the last few minutes I hope also that very few hon. Gentlemen will associate themselves with the unfortunate proposal put forward by one hon. Gentleman, that any industry which it taken from public ownership into private ownership will be taken over again without compensation.


Hon. Gentlemen opposite have the most remarkable ideas about what is
right and wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In their view—they are entitled to think this—all in State ownership is virtuous and good; all in private ownership is bad. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will ponder over this point, too, As a country we are particularly suspect to conduct by other countries which might arise from responding to that kind of suggestion. We have acquired a lot of industry in other countries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who spoke about foreign interests coming here will consider this point. I believe that the future of the world is in greater flowing of industry between different countries and less narrow nationalism of the kind preached by the party opposite. Those countries which in the post-war years have relied on private enterprise have produced for their peoples the highest standard of living in the history of mankind.

Mr. Golding: Hon. Members should examine my speech carefully tomorrow. I think that it was another hon. Member who talked about the introduction of foreign firms. I have been pondering the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) about bringing the Japanese over here to run Rolls-Royce. I wonder whether he would prefer a Dutch or Japanese company to control the present assets of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Gower: The Amendment is unduly restrictive and would confine any future development to the pre-emption of the Gas Council. I hope that it will not be accepted.

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) was absolutely correct when he said that the subject matter of this debate had been explored at considerable length in Committee. I am tempted to echo that remark, because we have tended tonight to go back over some of that ground. However, I recognise that a number of hon. Members could not take part in those debates, and for the benefit of those hon. Members, could I repeat my earlier assurance that, if it had been the Government's view that the Coal Board should be denied the

powers given to it under the 1966 Act, steps would have been taken to remove them altogether?
I was as categorical as I could be in assuring the Standing Committee that there was no intention to use the powers in Clause 7 so as to nullify the provisions of the National Coal Board (Additional Powers Act) 1966. However, for the benefit of those who were on the Committee, I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not try to cover all the points raised in this debate but instead address myself to the Amendment itself.
It is intended to provide that any direction relating to the Coal Board's interests in the United Kingdom offshore gas or oil activities should give a right of preemption to the Gas Council. Under its agreements with Conco and Gulf, the Coal Board has the right to assign its interest in the continental shelf licences which it holds with those companies to a third party, but the respective partner has the right to acquire the interest under certain conditions. The Opposition know that such an agreement exists. The Amendment would override this contractual arrangement between the Coal Board and its partners.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and others asked about the desirability of safeguarding indigenous resources for the nation. They will know that there are already safeguards to protect the national interest in any disposal of these assets. I made this clear in Standing Committee. The Secretary of State has discretionary powers under the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, over the assignment of licences. In approving any assignment of the N.C.B.'s licences in the North Sea, the Secretary of State would, of course, take into account the overall interest of the nation.
The intention of the Amendment seems clear. It is, as my hon. Friends have underlined, designed to ensure that in the event of the disposal of these particular assets of the N.C.B., special rights would be given to the Gas Council. While the intention is clear, the drafting of the Amendment is defective. The N.C.B.'s North Sea interests are held by a wholly owned subsidiary, National Coal Board (Exploration) Ltd., and to achieve its objective, the proviso should have been applied to subsection (2) and not subsection (1).


I have previously made it clear, but I think it necessary to repeat, that there is no decision whether or not to require the disposal or reorganisation of any of these assets. In other words, no decision has been taken on these matters.
The Amendment would not achieve what it is intended to achieve. Like the views of so many hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken on the subject, the Amendment is unacceptable, and I therefore invite my hon. Friends to reject it.

Mr. Michael Foot: I will not comment at length on the Minister's remarks because he has underlined the malignity of the purpose he has in mind in this part of the Bill.
It may be true, as he said, that there is something defective in the Amendment as drafted and that it would not achieve the exact purpose we have in mind. However, if that were the ground on which he was trying to secure its rejection, he should have said that the Amendment could have been phrased in a different way and that he would be happy to make arrangements for something of the sort to occur. That is the normal method of proceeding if an Amendment is being criticised solely on technical grounds.
In rejecting the Amendment and in referring to what would be the procedure if the Government tried to use their powers under the Bill to compel the N.C.B. to dispose of its North Sea gas operations, the Minister explained that an offer would have to be made to the partner of the N.C.B. in these operations. That is the case, is it not? The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition understand the position. We do.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: We were told that no decision has been taken one way or the other, and I presume that the Minister was referring to the selling off. That means undoubtedly that the Government are going to sell the activities off, otherwise they would leave things as they are.

Mr. Foot: It is argued that no decision has been made by the Government on these matters. We know that there is a general intention on their part to seek powers to do these things. I dare say that it is true that they have not taken

any decision about any particular project. They follow the procedure of the Bill and say that they must have the report of the study group and then decide what to do.
What would happen if the Government decided, following the investigation, that they wished to compel the National Coal Board to dispose of its partnership in the North Sea gas operations? This is a very important matter. The Minister says that the Opposition know what the position it. We do, and I am asking him to confirm it. The position is that if the Government decided to take this action the subsidiary concerned would have to make an offer to the American company. Therefore, if they tried to hive off this part of the activities a very likely result, which the Government would not be able to prevent, is that the whole North Sea gas operations would be sold off to the Americans.
I do not want to put the spokesmen of the oil lobbies in any order of precedence. They are among some hon. Members who have spoken as if the Board's North Sea gas activities constitute the juiciest plum of the lot. That is the one that they want to see plucked, but it should be known that if it is plucked by anyone it will be plucked by the Americans.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: rose—

Mr. Foot: I will certainly give way. This is oil man No. 1.

Mr. Tugendhat: Perhaps if that is so the hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him on a matter of fact. Before rising to speak, perhaps especially when he speaks from the Front Bench, he should keep his facts up to the minute. If he had looked at the tape so conveniently placed in this Palace he would have seen that the National Coal Board's partner in the North Sea, which he described as purely American, is merging with that great British company, Burmah Oil. That was announced today. When the hon. Gentleman is making a point about flogging those activities to the Americans, he should keep up to the minute with his facts.

Mr. Foot: I have been so busy during the day keeping an eye on hon. Gentlemen opposite that the latest activities of Burmah Oil have escaped my notice. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall


study the matter with great care and see what mergers and machinations are going on.
When we think about it, we see that this news strengthens the case enormously. The Government were saying that they would be prepared to sell the Board's North Sea gas operations to the partner, knowing, at least until the hon. Gentleman intervened, who the partner was. But now they are prepared to sell them to a partner perhaps merging with someone else, and they may not know who that is.
The Minister acknowledged that we know the position, and we do. Those gentlemen, whether Burmah Oil or anyone else with their eyes on the Board's North Sea gas operations had better avert their gaze because they will not have them. Not even this Government—and I know that in saying this I am going extremely far—would dare to offer to sell off the operations in the North Sea to an American partner first, whatever junctions it may have made with another firm in the meantime. Not even this Government would be prepared to do so.
10.30 p.m.
Indeed, the Government would be asking this House and the country to agree to the disposal of an asset on which millions of £s have been spent and from which we believe the British public should get the benefit. Whichever part of the country they come from, however great their enthusiasm may be for different sections of the oil industry, whatever advantages they think they are going to get from this part of the Bill, hon. Members opposite had better control

their greed, because it is not going to happen.
It has been made abundantly clear in Committee—and the hon. Gentleman has confirmed it, although not with complete candour—that the way in which this disposal would have to take place means that no one in this House or in the country who has any respect for the rights of the country would be prepared to engage in such a manoeuvre. If anyone were prepared to engage in it, he would he putting his respect for cash and cash transactions above the spirit of patriotism, and we will not accuse even the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster of wanting to take that course.
It was said by William Hazlitt that the City of London ought to be represented in this House by one large turtle. The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster has not got quite the physique to qualify for that position—he has only just started. But we know very well the interests he represents in the House. He does it with great charm and effectiveness.
I make it clear—and I hope that it will be well understood in the country—that whatever other depredations the Government may seek to make against the National Coal Board under this Bill, they are never going to get their greedy hands on the North Sea gas operation. It is going to be kept by the Board; it will be made to prosper by the Board, and it can make its contribution over the years to come to the public coffers of this country and not to private persons.

Amendment negatived.

Sir J. Eden: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 5, line 26, at end insert:
Provided that the Secretary of State shall not give any such direction unless he is satisfied that the taking of the steps in question will not prejudice the proper discharge by the Board of its duties.

Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 26, at end insert:
Provided that the Secretary of State shall not give any direction under this subsection unless he is satisfied that the proper discharge of the duties of the Board will not be prejudiced by their giving effect to the alteration which the direction requires to be made.
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and the names of his hon. Friends, if that is acceptable to the House.

Sir J. Eden: I should first draw attention to the fact that there is a small grammatical error in Amendment No. 27 in reference to the Board. It is usual to use the plural sense and therefore "its" should read "their".
The Amendment is an attempt to meet the point enshrined in Amendment No. 13, and does not arise from any particular point raised in Committee. Having seen Amendment No. 13 on the Order Paper, I thought that it would be right to table a Government Amendment which would meet the point contained in it and overcome one or two minor drafting difficulties involved.
The Opposition's Amendment refers to the Board "giving effect to the alteration", while Clause 7(3) refers to a direction to the Board "to take specified steps" with a view to altering. Amendment No. 27 is designed to meet the Opposition's point and at the same time to fit in with the rest of the subsection. In the circumstances of a direction of this kind under this part of the Clause, it is absolutely reasonable that the same sort of provision should be made as has been made in subsection (1).

Mr. Varley: We are pleased that the Minister has introduced his Amendment to ensure this minor safeguard to the powers of the Secretary of State. We are happy not to press Amendment No. 13 but to accept the Government's Amendment. However, I do not want to let the

occasion pass without saying that it is only a minor safeguard. By subsection (3) the Secretary of State can direct the Board to "take specified steps", and this means taking an active day-to-day interest in the affairs of the Coal Board.
The provisions for which the Secretary of State asks are wholly undesirable. They are totally unprecedented in a publicly-owned industry, they bring a ludicrous degree of ministerial interference into the affairs of the Coal Board and they will have far-reaching effects. They come ill from a Government who are supposed to be carrying out their election manifesto, which talked about Government disengaging from industry. The Secretary of State should not have sought this power, especially the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies), because he has demonstrated that he is prepared to be pushed around by the Minister for Industry and the Under-Secretary of State. However, the Government's Amendment offers a small safeguard and goes some way to meeting our point.
In a few years the Secretary of State will probably wish that he did not have the power in subsection (3) because it may well be that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries will have a wonderful time questioning the right hon. Gentleman about how he exercises it.
We are not happy about subsection (3), but the Government's Amendment goes some way to meeting our point and limits to some extent the wholly objectionable nature of subsection (3).

Mr. Ogden: Strange things happen in this Chamber from time to time, but when there is a meeting of minds such as we have had on these two Amendments I find it very strange indeed.

Mr. Concannon: We cannot win.

Mr. Ogden: I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) says that the Government's Amendment is a minor safeguard. But both Amendments—and it is possible to take either one of them because there is no difference between them—mean that no direction shall be given to the Coal Board unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that such a direction will not harm the Board in the operation of its major statutory duties. Who


will decide that a direction given will not harm? Who indeed but the Secretary of State, who was proved only a little while ago to have no power in his Department? In replying to the last debate, the Minister at least could have said, "In certain circumstances we are in favour of a partnership between private enterprise and nationalised industries." The man who introduces these Clauses into the Bill will be the sole judge, jury and executioner on what he will decide for a nationalised industry. That is no safeguard.
The only question in which I was interested was who put whose Amendment down first. I understand that it was done by my hon. Friend, with all the good intentions in the world. No wonder it was seized upon by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not like it when he says "taking steps" if he means "taking action". "Taking steps" is ungrammatical, but I will not argue about that. This offers no safeguard except the limited safeguards which my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Varley: I thought that I had made the position clear. My hon. Friend will recall that in Committee we tried to knock out the complete Clause, especially subsection (3). I agree with him that it is wholly objectionable. We were the first to put down the Amendment, but we are prepared to accept the Government's Amendment. It offers only a minute safeguard, but I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that we share his objection to the whole concept of subsection (3).

Mr. Mark Hughes: On the whole of the Clause there must be a series of both philosophical and conceptual differences which the Government Amendment highlights. The use of the word "proper" brings into question the philosophical and conceptual difference between the two sides of the House on the Clause.
During the Committee debate the Minister made the Government's view absolutely clear. I shall not bore the House by quoting more than what he said on the 9th February:
In the case of the coal industry, the objectives or duties of the National Coal Board were clearly set out in the opening Section of the 1946 Act. It was not the intention, nor should it now be the intention,

of Parliament to allow the National Coal Board to diversify into a wider range of activities, further away from its primary purpose, which is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) pointed out, the getting or winning of coal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 9th February, 1971; c. 700.]
That statement of what the Minister holds to be the proper discharge of the Coal Board's function is in very marked distinction to the general philosophical position taken up by the hon. Member for the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson), where a week earlier he had come out with what to me, even for a member of the Government side, is a marvellously encouraging view on the positions of the nationalised and private sectors:
There is an obsession among hon. Members opposite about the problems of nationalised industry. Perhaps they believe that we suffer from an obsession about private enterprise.
There are about four crossed parallel lines of obsession here at present.
But the fact is that there is nothing magical about State enterprises, just as there is nothing magical about private enterprise." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 2nd February, 1971; c. 486.]
10.45 p.m.
In view of these two somewhat differing concepts of what the proper function of the National Coal Board should be, I believe that the House should carefully examine the Amendment.
I make three propositions, the first two of which are self-evident. First, coal is a heterogeneous fuel rather than a homogeneous product, and within the whole range of calorific and chemical constituents of coal it is entirely possible that some forms of coal can be produced at what is in fact zero cost. In order to produce one sort of coal, the Coal Board cannot help but produce some other forms of coal which may have very little merchantable value and very little cost in terms of the original pricing processes. Second, far more than being just a fuel coal is a major chemical raw material.
From those two and other simple propositions which are self-evident there emerges what is far more important—the third proposition, namely, that it is of the nature of the coalmining industry that it should diversify. This is the crux


of the discussion on the Clause. If the first two propositions are accepted and we start to examine the third, we come, either on historical evidence or on contemporary international evidence, to but one conclusion—that all coalmining adventures have ended in diversification.
I do not need to bore the House with references to the Duke of Bridgwater. It was not his canal that preceded his coal ownership. He built the canal because without the canal his ownership of the coalmine just outside Manchester was worthless. The history of the family of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) shows that saltpans and glass bottle works have a close affinity with the exploitation of coal royalties. The development of the port of Blyth and Hartley by the hon. Gentleman's family was based as much upon glass bottles, grindstones, banking and everything else as it was on the coal industry. No entrepreneur in the North-East ever believed that coal ownership ended at the pithead.

Mr. Ridley: May I correct the record of this piece of family history by saying that my family did not own coalmines.

Mr. Hughes: With great deference, in 1738, of the Kenton Colliery just outside Newcastle Sir Matthew White—he had not at that time become Sir Matthew White-Ridley—owned 47 per cent. of the shares. As such one may be persuaded to believe that he had an interest in coal ownership. The home at which I lived until June perhaps illustrates this as well. The family of Lambton sank a pit there. From Lambton it passed to Joycey. From Joycey it passed to Bolkow Vaughan to Dorman Long, from whence it passed to the Coal Board.
The history of the coal industry in the North-East shows continuously that it is not possible to do anything but diversify out of the coal industry.
The development of the early chemical industry on Tyneside and Teesside, the development of the steel industry, all of these stem from the coal industry. This is true of more recent times as shown by the history of the United States in the mid-60's or the recommendation of the European Steel and Coal Community in 1964 to the privately-owned coal com-

panies of Western Europe which was "Go out and diversify". This is what every reasonable privately-owned coal company has done. To expect the coal industry of this country not to diversify or for it not to be a proper function of the industry is pure economic idiocy.
No coal industry can survive, or ever did survive, without a major degree of diversification. At the time of nationalisation those who drew up the 1946 Act and worked the schedules immediately after recognised this. The House is well aware of Section 1(2)(c)(d) and (e) in which it is made clear that in 1946 this propensity to diversify was fully understood, accepted and welcomed. It was never suggested that this was simply a nationalisation of coal-getting. Hon. Members opposite will be aware that the first passenger rail service to be nationalised in this country was the Whitburn-South Shields line, owned by the National Coal Board.
Salt works, everything, came in with nationalisation as a normal part of coal industry activities, as a proper part. Therefore, when we look at the problems of Clause 7 we see that the Board has diversified not because it is a nationalised industry but because it is of the nature of colliery activities and coal mining that it must diversify. Historically and currently this is the case.
Clearly we must accept this basic proposition, that the coal industry cannot be confined to sending coal to the pithead. The Government's position, from the statements of 9th and 7th February seems to be that although every other coal mining concern in the world should be encouraged to diversify in whatever way seems to be best to the management, our mining industry should be denied that opportunity. This is not because it is inefficient. The Minister has said clearly that he has the greatest faith in the management of the Coal Board. It is not because it is beyond the terms of the 1946 Act, because again it is clear that nothing the Board has so far done is beyond what it can properly do under the Act. It is not because it does not carry out these activities properly, whether or not judged by the yardstick of profitability. Hon. Members opposite have made clear that the profitability of any undertaking is not the criterion by which it shall be determined whether it shall be hived off.


Where does it all end? We are told that the Board is to be ordered to stop what it is doing for no other reason than that it is nationalised. Here we have dogmatism and delusion erected into a public policy, a disgrace to every economic tenet that has been preached in this country for the last hundred years. This is nothing more than a determination that the National Coal Board should be used as the example pour encourager les autres; that whatever the National Coal Board has been allowed to get away with, this Government and the Ministers opposite will use it as an example for not permitting other nationalised industries to follow the normal economic bents in that particular sector of the economy. That no ordinary economic criteria are to be applied, but that what is to happen is that a ruler, containing only one line at the extreme left hand end, is to be used and for everything that passes that mark it is to be said: "This is undesirable and shall be got rid of because it is improper."
What about coke ovens? Are we to be told that they are improper? If so, let us be told clearly why. And if coke ovens are considered to be improper, then the whole range of heavy organic chemical production follows as night follows day. How can a steel company in West Germany, a coal company in the United States, or the National Coal Board involve themselves in coke production without moving towards the heavy organic chemical spectrum.
Is the merchanting of coal an improper activity any more than an oil company, which permits the sales of cars or garages in its ownership, is an improper activity. Is the merchanting through Sankey of coal appliances wrong because they burn coal, any more than it is wrong to sell products of the motor industry through an oil company because those products use petrol? These are the sorts of criteria of propriety that even in this helpful Government Amendment we are called upon to support.
What we fear in the whole of Clause 7 is that, though words may be used by the other side which have a sweet reasonableness to which among friends no objection can be taken, in the last analysis those words have no meaning in reality. When they talk about the proper functioning of the Coal Board, they mean

something that is totally unacceptable to every Member on this side of the House.
It is in this sense that we object to this Amendment. We find that, with the best will in the world, the whole concept of the Government, even when it is divested of emotion, is totally unacceptable when they say that x is a proper activity. Speaking for myself and for my hon. Friends and those in County Durham whom I represent, what is proper for the present Government we cannot believe is proper for us.

Amendment agreed to.

11.0 p.m.

Sir J. Eden: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 33, leave out from first 'Board' to end of line 40 and insert:
(6) A direction by the Secretary of State to the Board under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be given by order made by statutory instrument, of which a draft shall be laid before Parliament.
During our proceedings in Standing Committee, with the assistance of some of my hon. Friends, the Opposition wrote into the Bill certain words which my Amendment now proposes should be left out. The words that were written in, at the instance of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), were brought forward to establish some form of parliamentary procedure concerning the directions which may be given under Clause 7. My hon. Friends were motivated by a proper desire to ensure effective accountability to the House for any actions that Ministers might take under the Clause.
In the form of words that I put to the House in the Amendment, there are a number of ways in which improvements are secured over the words which are currently in the Bill. First, the existing subsection (5) provides that only in the event of the Board objecting to a direction would such a direction have to be incorporated in an order. I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale indicated that he recognised that that was not wholly appropriate and he would not, I think, take it amiss to see that aspect removed. I do not think it would be right that the Board should have the initiative in deciding whether a direction should be presented to the House.


Also, in the event of the Board objecting to a direction, the House would be placed in the position of having to act as some kind of umpire between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Board. My Amendment would remove that aspect of the wording which was written into the Bill by the hon. Member's Amendment.
Secondly, while the Government recognise the importance of the principle of parliamentary procedure relating to the directions under Clause 7, subsections (1) and (2), that principle need not be extended to directions under subsection (3). As the House well knows, directions under that subsection would involve only organisational changes. They would not involve the disposal of assets acquired with public money. If, subsequent to a reorganisation, the Board were directed to dispose of an asset, such a direction would, of course, come under subsection (1) or (2). That would mean that it would be subject to the parliamentary procedure proposed in my Amendment.
Thirdly, the form of parliamentary procedure enshrined in my Amendment will, I think, be generally more acceptable to the House. The affirmative Resolution procedure requires a debate in any circumstances. In this instance, with the negative procedure, an element of option is open and it would ensure that a debate would take place only when it was required.
My final point in support of the Amendment is that the laying of an order in draft and making it subject to the negative procedure avoids the situation which might arise under the alternative procedures that were proposed in Committee by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. An order under the affirmative procedure would require to be subject to debate automatically. If it were an order to be made, as distinct from an order to be laid in draft, even though it was subject to negative Resolution, the Board would be under an obligation to comply as soon as the order was made.
I hope that with that brief summary of the aspects of my Amendment, the House will feel that I have honoured the undertaking which I gave to the Standing Committee to produce a form of words which would meet the spirit of our debate in Committee on the Amendment moved

by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I hope that what I am now inviting the House to support fully discharges that obligation.

Mr. Michael Foot: I should like first to consider what the hon. Gentleman has proposed, and then to make some comments upon it. But perhaps I may say, in reference to his last remarks, that it is not only a question of his wishing to discharge an undertaking that he gave to the Committee. Somehow or other he had to deal with the vote of the Committee, and it is the vote which caused the change in the situation. He had obviously been making undertakings which were not satisfactory to this side of the Committee at that time and which were not satisfactory to some of his hon. Friends, so a vote took place and it was because of that vote that we are now having this discussion.
The hon. Gentleman may argue, and nobody can disprove it, because the whole matter is retrospectively hypothetical—if there is such a condition—that he would have produced something like this if he had been left to his own devices. But of course he could have put it in the Bill originally, if that is claimed. He could have had this enlightenment before the Bill started. The reason why that did not occur is that the Bill was hastily concocted and chunks were taken out of other Bills and slammed into this one, and nobody thought about this question of how we were going to have proper accountability. However, I do not propose to press that very much.
Now let me turn to the points which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in defence or in elaboration of what he is proposing. First of all, he said that when I was putting forward the Amendment which was eventually carried, and which is now incorporated in the Bill, I acknowledged that there were defects in it; and I still accept that that is the situation. It would have been unwise to leave the Amendment in the form in which it stands in the Bill—partly for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has stated. He was perfectly entitled to argue, as were others, that the question of whether there should be parliamentary control of this nature should not rest on whether the Board made an objection or wanted a matter referred to Parliament in any form at


all. It is much better that the provision should be one which covers the position altogether, irrespective of what is the argument between a Minister and the National Coal Board. So with that part of what he said I am in agreement.
However, when he comes to argue that we turn the affirmative procedure into the negative procedure, I think it would be better if he had still retained the affirmative procedure, because we all know in this House that the affirmative procedure is a stronger one than the negative procedure. The affirmative procedure ensures that there shall be Parliamentary time, and we know that all Governments—particularly this Government—get into trouble over parliamentary time, so it is easier to get time if the affirmative procedure prevails. That is one ground on which I should prefer the affirmative procedure.
It is the case that the affirmative procedure is often employed when matters are of major consequence, and some of these questions which may arise under this Bill would be of major consequence, So the affirmative procedure would have been better. However, during the Committee stage, when we were arguing and seeking to enlist the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite in securing the change, I said that we wanted an undertaking from the hon. Gentleman. We hoped it would be the affirmative procedure, but it would be an improvement on the position if it were the negative one. Therefore, if that were the only quarrel I had with the way in which he introduced this Amendment, or with his interpretation of the situation, I would not object so strongly on that ground.
The most substantial objection to the way in which the hon. Gentleman has interpreted the alteration is the removal from the Clause of its application to subsection (3). The Minister referred to the matter candidly in his statement and did not try to conceal it. The Minister knew that he was removing from the operation of subsection (5), as we had arranged it in Committee, subsection (3).
The argument is that subsection (3) describes an action which can be taken by the Minister of a different order from the kind of action which can be taken by the Secretary of State under subsections (1) and (2). It is a different form

of action; none the less, it is action of a serious character.
Subsection (3) states:
The Secretary of State may direct the Board to take specified steps, in respect of any activities of the Board or a subsidiary of the Board, with a view to altering the way in which those activities are organised.
Therefore, that kind of instruction to the Coal Board will, if the Amendment is accepted, be in operation and the Secretary of State will be able to give orders to the Coal Board to alter the way in which it organises various activities.
That raises a peculiar clash with the Act under which the Coal Board operates as a whole. Section 1(2) of the 1946 Act sets out the functions of the Board:
The functions of the National Coal Board …shall include the carrying on of all such activities as it may appear to the Board to be requisite, advantageous or convenient for them to carry on for or in connection with the discharge of their duties.
Similarly, the additional powers in Section 1(3) of the 1946 Act are:
The Board shall have power to do any thing … which in their opinion is calculated to facilitate the proper discharge of their duties … or is incidental or conducive thereto.
Similar language is used in the National Coal Board (Additional Powers) Act, 1966, to which reference has been made, which deals with the North Sea gas operations of the Board.
So there can easily be a clash in the sense that the Board may say here, "We want to carry on these activities in one way, and that is the duty which is imposed upon us by the original Act", but the Minister, under subsection (3), could give orders to the Board which may conflict with that situation. We are saying that that kind of order should be subject to parliamentary approval or discussion as well as orders under subsections (1) and (2).

Sir J. Eden: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recollect that the House has just approved Amendment No. 27, which adds a proviso to subsection (3) relating hack to the duties of the Coal Board in this connection.

Mr. Foot: Yes. I understand that, too. But my hon. Friends made forceful speeches suggesting that what were proper activities of the Board can be interpreted in different ways. We think that they would probably be interpreted by a


Minister seeking to give an instruction to the Board in different ways from the Board. Therefore, I do not think that that is sufficient protection.
I want to emphasise that under subsection (3), as well as under subsections (1) and (2), the Government are seeking powers to give directions to the National Coal Board to operate in a different way than it has hitherto. Hitherto, the whole thing has been governed by the 1946 Act, which gives various powers for the Minister to intervene. The Coal Board is told in effect to get on with the job and it makes its own interpretation as to how it shall do the job. Now, the Secretary of State is possibly taking powers not only to say "You must not continue with such activities; you must hive them off", but also to intervene directly and say, "You must conduct some of your activities differently and we will give you detailed instructions on how to do it."
11.15 p.m.
That is a strange doctrine to come from those who have preached the doctrine of disengagement, as the Secretary of State —who is here to listen to our debate—did in such a strong speech at the Tory Party conference, when he described his idea of disengagement in the nationalised industries. But this is not disengagement. This is the Minister taking powers beyond those which have existed before to intervene by decree in the affairs of the Coal Board and in such a way, possibly, that the Coal Board would not be able to carry out its statutory functions under the original Act. I believe that the Government should look again at the question of including subsection (3). If they did that, leaving aside all questions of why the hon. Gentleman had to come forward with this Clause at all, he would at least be in a better position to say that he had discharged his obligation.
I know that he cannot make a manuscript Amendment to his own Amendment, but there is still the resort of the House of Lords, It has some uses after all. That is a very difficult thing for me to acknowledge but I suppose that the House of Lords may rescue even this Government from some of their more outlandish actions. But at least there is the possibility of reinstating subsection (3). I hope that he will give an under-

taking now that he will consider incorporating it. I believe that that will cover the situation.
If he does not do it, there will be left a legal situation which is certainly open to great question, because there will be a clash between the Minister who says that he has the powers under the Act to give orders, and the Chairman of the Coal Board who says that he has to carry out the instructions under the original Act to do what he thinks is best for these activities as a whole. So, in the interests not only of protecting the Coal Board, as we have sought throughout these debates to do, but also of achieving constitutional clarity, the Government should be prepared to accent our Amendment.
Of course this Amendment which we have secured is of major importance. It is not only a minor question of having secured an insertion of an afterthought which the Minister had overlooked and which has now been put into the Bill. Something more important than that has been secured, and I acknowledge our gratitude to those hon. Members opposite who were prepared to consider the matter, as we believed, on its merits and to vote in that sense.
I believe that the situation has been changed most beneficially by this Amendment. It governs the whole Bill, except for the parts which I have been talking about under subsection (3). There are all the hiving-off measures which the Government may have in mind, although the Minister has insisted that his mind is completely vacant on this subject. At least, he says that in the House, but not in Bournemouth, where he makes speeches for which he is rapped over the knuckles by the Secretary of State. I am interested to see the Secretary of State here tonight to see that the Minister does not commit in the House the indiscretions of which he is guilty outside.
It should be known that as a result of our deliberation—-I am a supporter of the parliamentary method of conducting these matters; sometimes, even tonight, people may think that our procedures are strange and that we take a long time to reach conclusions-we have secured a position which was not provided by the Government in the Bill as originally drafted.
The House of Commons will now have some say when it is proposed to hive


off parts of the N.C.B.'s activities. In other words, we have greatly reduced the area of Ministerial decree, which was the deepest offence in the Measure as originally proposed. The Secretary of State had proposed that over a wide range of activities he would have been able, merely by his decree, to have lopped off parts of the Board's activities here and there. Parliament has insisted that that shall not be so and that the right hon. Gentleman shall not have such dictatorial powers.
I trust, therefore, that the House fully appreciates the importance of what has been secured. I ask the Government to go further—I hope that I shall have the assistance of some valiant hon. Gentlemen opposite in this request—and include the subsection (3) principle in the provision. Irrespective of that, we have, I believe, taken an effective step towards ensuring that this programme of hiving off parts of the Board's activities will not go ahead. In any event, it will certainly not be done in the dark. Any proposals will have to be made public and the arguments adduced in the House. This is a major victory for democracy and for enabling the N.C.B. to do its job properly.

Mr. Swain: I regret the absence of two hon. Gentlemen opposite—hon. Members will know to whom I am referring—who served with us in Committee upstairs. However, I applaud the presence of one hon. Gentleman opposite who, though he did not vote with us in Committee on this issue, did not vote against us. We thereby achieved the victory of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) spoke, though I am not sure that "victory" is the right word to use in this context.
Bearing in mind what occurred in Committee, I am surprised that the Minister is not prepared to take more notice of it. Originally I asked for the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House. However, the Government decided, following the democratic process of a Division, to send it upstairs.
We in Committee upstairs were charged with certain duties, among them to examine the Bill thoroughly and amend it where necessary. As a result of some hon. Gentlemen opposite appreciating the need for an Amendment which we moved, we now have parliamentary accountability in this matter, and

back benchers will have the right to air their views on some of the major issues which may arise under the Bill. Originally the Government were to have governed by decree, thereby preventing back benchers from having their democratic right to examine how and why a Minister reached a decision.
I think that I can outline the principle underlying the debate in Committee without being out of order. Having passed Clause 6 after a series of Amendments had been defeated, we thought that the Minister would have the relevant facts and figures locked away in his own possession and would not be accountable to Parliament. What hurt us most, and what made Conservative hon. Members vote with the Opposition, was that Parliamentary accountability was going by the board, and we were leaning towards government by decree. The Minister was to be charged with the sole responsibility of locking away those facts, having conducted the review, and the only people with whom he would discuss them would be the prospective buyers of the sections of the industry to be hived off. No Minister in any Government should have that sort of responsibility conferred upon him. Back-benchers and Parliament would have no responsibility, and it would be left entirely to the wisdom or otherwise of the Minister, whoever he might be at the time, to decide which sections of the industry should be sold to private enterprise and which of the private enterprise undertakings should be the prospective purchasers.
Therefore, we carried the Amendment in Committee. I felt that day not a member of the side which had just won a major victory but a member of a team which had just won a victory for democracy, something I hope all of us on both sides stand for. I am certain that if tonight we could ventilate the whole of the arguments advanced in Committee, and the two Conservative hon. Members who supported us were here to express their verbal support, the House would be prepared to instruct the Minister to change the wording of the Amendment. I hope that he will use the other place to restore the Committee's wishes. The Committee was charged with a responsibility which it carried out in 13 long sittings. It argued the merits and demerits of every point


in the Bill, particularly on public accountability. It was one of the finest Committees I ever sat on, because every detail was analysed.
The Minister has blatantly refused to accept the Committee's decision on a major Amendment, and is prepared to use a built-in majority of hon. Members who have not heard one word of discussion in Committee or on the Floor of the House on Report to impose his wishes upon the House.
I feel very strongly about this. Without becoming too acrimonious, I ask the hon. Gentleman seriously to consider what my hon. Friend has said and what I have said in trying to support him, and to change the wording in the other place so that democracy can be the victor at the end of the day.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: When explaining his attitude, the Minister used certain phrases which have convinced me that it was critically important to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in his plea to the Government. The Minister said that it was not necessary or important to apply the change, to which he agreed after the vote and argument in Committee, to subsection (3), because that would deal only with reorganisation. But he added that that might lead to other changes later, that reorganisation would precede other changes which the Government might have in mind, but these other changes would fall within subsection (1) or (2) and therefore be covered by the exceptions.

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member misunderstands what I said. The first part was absolutely right, but I said that if subsequent to a reorganisation the Board was directed to dispose of that asset, that would come under subsection (1) or (2).

Mr. Mendelson: I do not think that we differ. Perhaps I did not express it as clearly as the Minister and I am grateful to him for that intervention. While he does not think that the change should apply to subsection (3), he agrees that it would deal with reorganisation only if such reorganisation led later to a disposal of the assets.

Sir J. Eden: There is one difference between us. It is not that the reorganisation itself would or might lead to disposal; it is whether after any reorganisation had taken place, but not necessarily on account of it, there was a direction to dispose when that direction would be subject to this provision.

Mr. Mendelson: That is precisely the point about which I am worried. It is not necessarily because of reorganisation, but when reorganisation leads to a decision by the Government to dispose of some assets of the National Coal Board, I am worried, because of the debate in Standing Committee, about which we have heard, and in view of what the Minister has said, that the original instruction given under subsection (3) could deal only with reorganisation inspired by a previous private decision of the Government that it should eventually lead to disposal of assets.

Sir J. Eden: If that were the case, it would be subject to the procedure.

Mr. Mendelson: I fully accept that. What I am insisting on is if the Government privately decide that there should be a disposal of assets and actively implement their decision and direct the Board to dispose of some of its activities. It must be common ground between us that this may happen, and it is therefore all the more essential that Parliament, not at the stage when the Government give instructions to reorganise some activity, but at the earliest stage, should know what is in their mind. This is a decisive reason why the procedure suggested by my hon. Friend should be agreed by the Government.
It has always been assumed in con stituencies earning their livelihoods through the work of the Board that all directions would lead to the improvement of efficiency or work, or make the work more profitable, or provide for future profits to improve the assets of the Board to be invested in new machinery, all the normal good reasons for which reorganisation might be required. But this would introduce an entirely new motivation in a direction to reorganise, namely, to improve efficiency in a part of the Board's activities, not for greater investment to continue and extend its activities, but for a completely different and negative purpose, namely,


so to rearrange or reorganise the activities of one part of the Board so as to be in a better position to dispose of that part of its assets.
That would come as a great shock to those who earn their livelihood in the industry because it would be the reverse of the normal purposes of reorganisation. That makes it all the more urgent that at this early stage Parliament should be able to examine the purposes of such a formal direction, long before there might be an instruction in respect of the disposal of the assets. Although we may not agree, at least the Government and I understand each other on this matter.
This is all the more important because there has been considerable concern among those employed in the industry about the Government's intentions and also because of our experience in recent years of the policy of mergers. Often, possibly 18 months or two years ahead, a secret decision is taken by management about which the employees—staff and those on production work—and the unions know nothing. But they see that a lot of reorganisation seems to be taking place in the shop, although they do not know why. There seems a reluctance to install a certain type of new technology, while other technology is used in a different way. Nobody knows why. But suddenly, two years later, without anybody having been previously informed, there is an announcement in the newspapers that a merger will take place resulting in so many redundancies.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry knows that I made this point to him when he made an announcement not long ago on another type of reorganisation concerning firms. It is important that those employed in the coal industry should always know at the earliest possible moment the policy which the Government are pursuing. Although this may appear a technical point, I agree with my hon. Friends who said that in Committee they secured a major improvement in the Bill and that part of the improvement is being carried through by the Government in the Amendment. If we are to be reassured that a direction limited to reorganisation is not merely a consequence of a previous Government policy decision and that such reorganisation is not merely a gateway to a disposal

of assets, then the positive procedure which my hon. Friends have urged should be accepted and the Minister should meet the wishes of the Opposition, in another place. by extending the procedure also to subsection (3).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stainton: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 6, line 5, at end add:
(8) The Secretary of State may direct the Board that any sums arising from the disposal of any part of their undertaking or assets shall be applied to a Disposals Proceeds Reserve Fund, which Fund shall be available to the Board for application in the general financing of its activities.
It is curious that one tends often to spend a long time on a subject and deal with it with apparent thoroughness and yet, after the event, find a realisation that there is some considerable omission. There was just such a considerable omission in the Standing Committee concerning what is to happen to the proceeds of the operations of the N.C.B. to be hived off. I imagine that it is like the rising and the setting of the sun. At high noon, we were really flaying each other and gradually enthusiasm for debate waned. [An HON. MEMBER: "It started to rain."] Yes, it started to rain, and a realisation set in that we had to draw stumps and that we should complete our discussion on this topic of how the proceeds of disposals were to be dealt with. We turned our backs on the problem entirely.
Since then, I have spent a little time looking through the Bill and I must confess that it has been a case of "hunt the slipper". Where on earth does the money go? How is it dealt with? I started first with the financial provisions and spotted a good place in Clause 9(2). It contains a lot of confusing words about the Consolidated Fund, which intrigued me. But I concluded that they had no relevance to the question.
I concluded that the only thing to do was to put down an Amendment on Report. I move this Amendment hanging my head. If hon. Members study the Notice of Amendments printed on 22nd February, they will see that the Amendment there standing in my name extended to ten lines; it now extends to 3½. The other 6½ lines were lost on the basis of advice that, as the Amendment was


drafted, Mr. Speaker might rule it out of order because it provided for payments into the Consolidated Fund not covered by the Money Resolution. I was told that it could, however, be brought into order by leaving out all the words after "activities" in the middle of the fourth line. Whether I have been truncated, amputated or dismembered, I do not know; whether I have the torso or the head, I am not certain. All I have is the index finger with which to point to my hon. Friend on the question of hiving-off proceeds.
How will the cash flow? Where will it reside? Where will it finish up? What are the accounting implications? What the acounting provisions will be for the Board is a separate question from the cash implications. After last night, I do not feel in very good trim to pursue the argument in all its niceties. Would that it were two or three hours earlier!
My understanding of the situation of the cash flow arises merely from deductions from going through the Report and Accounts and looking through the Charter Act of the Board and various subsequent enactments, and it is that the proceedings of the hiving-off, should that come about, will be paid into the joint stock bank of the Board. They would presumably be accounted as capital receipts and would flow from the joint stock bank to the clearing account in the Bank of England, and that clearing account in the Bank of England would automatically—[Interruption.] The Minister and his colleague are knitting their eyebrows. I have been into this matter in detail and I do not want to be treated with scorn. Despite the lateness of the hour, I regard this as a very important topic. I take my share of responsibility for the error of omission in Committee, but so do all other hon. Members who served on the Committee.
11.45 p.m.
I understand that money will flow from the joint stock bank if it was designated there on capital account. It will pass to the clearing account of the Bank of England from where automatically it would go to the paymaster's account to reduce the day-to-day borrowings of the Coal Board presumably under the ways and means advances heading. Perhaps my detective work and deductions are wrong,

but that would appear to be how the cash would flow.
I will come in a moment to the question of how all this is treated in the Coal Board's accounts. It is a separate topic, but it is at least of equal importance. It is important that we deal adequately with this question because we have had a variety of comments, not only in the Chamber tonight, but in Committee, and the range of the comments is well illustrated, for example, by reference to my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat), who in a very dramatic intervention in Committee pointed out to an hon. Member opposite, who was talking about the lack of finance in the Coal Board to exploit a smokeless fuel process, that, as a result of hiving off, finance would come back into the Board which would then be available for refinancing the expansion of the smokeless fuel process. That was one theme of argument—that the working capital of the Coal Board would be vastly enhanced by hiving off.
We have heard comments about rich pickings and selling off the plums. These are arguments which can easily be, perhaps not disposed of, but come to grips with in terms of the accounting procedures adopted from a cash and accounting point of view. How is this matter to be handled and shown in the accounts?
Let me take an entirely hypothetical example. For ease of argument at this time of night, I shall assume that the Coal Board realises a profit over the original cost on the assets when it comes to hiving off. Suppose that the assets were acquired for, say, £100,000 and this amount was financed by Exchequer money at 8 per cent. They were sold on a willing buyer, willing seller basis at £200,000. This shows a capital profit of £100,000. Had my original Amendment stood, I would have directed my proceeds into a disposals proceeds reserve fund and made the funds available for general financing of the Coal Board for the time being and then left it for consultation between the Minister or the Secretary of State and the Coal Board to decide whether there was any surplus and then, should it be decided that a surplus existed, it should be redirected to the consolidated fund. But I do not know whether I have the head


or the torso. Let me pursue the argument. I am not especially advocating my Amendment, and I realise that I must be careful in saying that because I am speaking to it. I have explained my difficulties, and I hope that the Amendment will serve as a useful and legitimate vehicle for airing this difficult and important question.
We have the asset acquired at £100,000 and disposed of at £200,000—a capital profit of £100,000. One presumes that in accounting terms, irrespective of the cash which has now gone through the Paymaster-General's account and been lost to the National Coal Board perhaps overnight, the £100,000 capital profit will be reflected in the capital reserves of the Board and be available to the Board, against which to write off, for example, colliery closures or losses on other realisations. This is a very important point. I am differentiating very carefully the accounting procedures from the cash procedures.
In terms of the gain, I should like to raise the question of the status of the N.C.B. in taxation terms. So far as I can deduce from the accounts, there must be about £300 million of revenue tax loss carried forward, but I am unclear as to the situation on capital gains tax and whether offsetting will be permitted in this situation and just where the N.C.B. will finish up.
I apologise for landing the House with such a complex problem at this time of night. I have skated over the surface very hurriedly. I hope that I have elicited the interest of my colleagues on this side of the House and excited the curiosity of hon. Members opposite, and that we shall have an interesting and useful debate.

Mr. Skinner: I am very much attracted to the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) in the form of an Amendment. They hold out many possibilities, especially for the National Union of Mineworkers.
When we have all this money from the proceeds of the disposal, the hiving off of activities, the first thing we could think about using it for would be to possibly offset part of the £74 million which the Coal Board had to pay for importing

mainly American fuel at the time when we were short of coal in the late 1940s and 1950s.

Mr. Swain: 1947.

Mr. Skinner: Naturally we should not expect it to reach the astronomical amount of £74 million. Nevertheless, we should feel a little pleased about getting part of it back. Against that, the N.U.M. officials and membership generally might consider that it might go a small part of the way towards offsetting the £2,000 million which the Coal Board lost as a result of subsidising private industry between 1947 and 1959.
We might consider putting it to a more parochial use. For a considerable number of years the miners have been able to secure from the Board a guarantee of only two weeks annual holiday. In recent years we have managed to get rest days, but these are only in lieu of shorter hours. The sum of £13 million, the amount which has accrued in profits from the assets which are to be hived off. would help to pay for another week's holiday and miners would be pleased to think that they were getting an additional week's holiday as a result of a Tory Amendment. For many years the majority of the white collar sector of industry has enjoyed 3 or 4 weeks' holiday. Many industrial workers now get more than two weeks.
The N.U.M., at its annual conference in July, may arising from the Amendment think in terms of long service payments for miners. One of the tragedies of this industry is that when a miner reaches retirement age, whether at 55 or whether he manages to stay on to 65, he generally finishes up on a lower wage than that which he was receiving 10 years earlier. Because he is disabled or because he is worn out after 30 or 40 years service at the coalface, he must take a job at a much lower rate. Miners have been greatly attracted to the idea of long service payments. A large part of industry operates incremental scales. One of the arguments in the Post Office dispute surrounds the question of incremental scales. At its conference in July the N.U.M. might consider that this pot of gold could well be used for such a purpose.


An even more worthy use to which this money could be put would be to finance additional payments for unsocial hours. Mining is one of the most arduous industries in the world, yet it is a tragedy that very few people working underground or on the surface receive any additional payment for working unsocial hours. A few workers get 6d.—21½p—an hour for working between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. In the context of the recent award to the power workers, the N.U.M. might consider that this money could well be used to provide an extra 2—p an hour for miners, thus somewhat improving their wages and conditions.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: After the money has been obtained by selling off these firms, would it not be far better for us to buy half the shares back in the private enterprise firms immediately?

Mr. Skinner: There has been a strong link between Yorkshire and Derbyshire.

Mr. Swain: Let us not break it.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) was probably out of the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley), who has made several speeches, made it clear that, if there were to be renationalisation of the hived-off assets, it would be without compensation.
12 m.
Coming from what is generally recognised as a militant Left-wing area of that union, I feel strongly about the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend. The most attractive proposition is that the money should be used to provide coal for retired and redundant miners. There is a misconception, even among people in the coalfields, that the retired miner receives free coal. The tragedy is that in a good many areas they do not receive anything at all. It is only in areas where benevolent miners having got together, where people like my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) who was branch secretary for long enough of a large colliery, have championed such schemes that this coal has been forthcoming.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: Surely my hon. Friend will not forget South Wales. We

had a scheme like this long before it was even thought of in Derbyshire.

Mr. Skinner: I am glad to hear it. The most attractive proposition—

Mr. Golding: May I question my hon. Friend's priorities. As I understand it the Coal Board, for the first time, has had to admit legal liability for pneumoconiosis cases. Would it not be a good thing for the Coal Board to add to this crock of gold the money that it will be spending fighting the unions in the courts over individual cases. From that money there could be established a special fund for miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. In addition something could be provided for those miners being denied compensation because their doctors wrongly diagnose emphysema or bronchitis.

Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has made that point. Before coming to this House I read many of the HANSARDS and I noticed that there were often debates and questions asked about pneumoconiosis, bronchitis and emphysema and associated chest diseases.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman needs a little reminding that it is the Chair he should address.

Mr. Skinner: I apologise if I was not keeping in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me make myself clear. When an hon. Member is speaking the main part of the time he should look at the Chair and address the rest of his remarks to the rest of the House.

Mr. Skinner: Thank you, Sir Robert. I shall be glad to look in your direction. Perhaps I will get more inspiration.

Mr. Stainton: I would like to point out that in moving this Amendment I explained that it had been truncated. It was within my discretion to withdraw it completely. I have been endeavouring to work with the Opposition and with the House. Let us have some good sense.

Mr. Skinner: There may have been some humour as a result of the points I have been making, but I am trying to be honest in the propositions I have put forward for the spending of this money usefully.

Mr. Stainton: The hon. Gentleman must pursue the point whether the money was a receipt of the National Coal Board. The proposition in the Amendment would leave the money available to the Board. I have explained that that was not my intention and it was fortuitous that the Amendment appeared in that way to give the House the opportunity to consider this question. Are we going to proceed with this or not? If not, I shall take no further part.

Mr. Skinner: I take the point, but naturally it would be getting this money as a result of the hiving off. The Coal Board would then have a sum of money which hitherto it had not had. Therefore, instead of the Chairman of the Board saying to the union "There is not sufficient money to improve wages and conditions", there would then be a reserve fund and the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers would be able to say "What about the proceeds as a result of the hived-off activities?" They might want to take part of it, or they might want to save it for the following year, or might want to dispose of it in countless ways. It is evident that Mr. Daly of the N.U.M. would know there was money around and would be anxious to spend it, especially in the present situation where the bargaining power of the trade union in the coal mines is greater than it has been for a considerable amount of time.
I come back to the attractive proposition that I was beginning to outline. I apologise that I seemed to give the impression that there was no county scheme in South Wales. My point is that hitherto in all the areas of the coalfields without exception retired and redundant miners have received free coal. Part of this money could be used by the National Coal Board to provide free coal to miners in those categories for the rest of their lives. I feel that this is a most attractive proposition which we ought to have considered before.
Since we do not accept the ideology of hiving off activities and accruing money in that way, we did not feel inclined to put down Amendments on the use of such money by the Coal Board for subsequent use by the miners themselves. But since there was before the House an Amendment put down by an hon. Member on the Conservative

benches, I took the advantage to make suggestions as to ways in which the money could be utilised. The money accruing could thereby be used for the benefit of the miners, retired mineworkers and wives and widows.

Mr. Ridley: Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to say a few words about this Amendment. I say straight away to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it would be improper to use capital receipts for income purposes in the way he has been suggesting. Any suggestion of that sort would be totally wrong since the only way these capital moneys could be dealt with would be by putting them to capital account or spending them on capital projects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) is owed a full answer. I am sorry that he is not present to hear it, but I would not like that to prevent me from trying to answer his questions so that he will be able to see them on the record. There were three questions: first, what would happen to the moneys that were received if any activity was sold off; secondly, how they will be accounted for; and thirdly, what is the tax position of such capital moneys if they are received. I will try to deal with each question.
There is in Section 29 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, power to establish a reserve fund, and that fund is established. The moneys would be paid into that reserve fund. The moneys would, of course, be paid into the current banking account of the National Coal Board but they would be credited to the reserve fund. They could, from there, be used for any proper capital purposes, such as further investment in new investment projects, reducing any accumulated capital deficit or repaying loans from the Government if the Coal Board so chose.
The Board would be free to decide in which way it wanted to apply those moneys. They would remain the possession of the Coal Board. My hon. Friend was quite wrong in suggesting that, in some way, they would find their way automatically into the Consolidated Fund. They would do so only if the Coal Board chose to pay them there.


I should add that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power under Section 29 (2) (b) of the 1946 Act to give the Board directions, with the approval of the Treasury but not with the negative procedure, that the sums in the fund should be applied in certain ways.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: Over the years, the Coal Board will have invested the money in different subsidiaries, including the sort of things we have been talking about which might be sold off, and the general result of this has been to determine the level of wages paid to miners. Because the Board has spent a terrific amount of money in certain projects, it has not been left with enough money to pay high wages. Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that if those projects are sold back and money is received for them, it cannot be used to pay good wages in the future?

Mr. Ridley: I confess that an accumulated deficit could be arrived at by paying higher wages and, therefore, causing a greater deficit. The deficit in those circumstances becomes a capital liability. To be frank with the House, it would be possible to apply capital sums to reducing a deficit, because they become capital losses. If, however, the sums were paid out directly in bonus, wages or concessionary coal, I do not think that they would be passed by the accountant who looked at the Board's accounts.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I am still not happy. Over the years, the wages and conditions of miners have been determined by the overall position of the Board. The purchase of different parts or subsidiaries over the years has meant that the Board has had less money to pay out in wages. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if those activities are now turned over and a profit is made, it cannot be used to improve the wages or conditions of men employed in the industry? May I be given a clear answer?

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Ridley: Yes, I am suggesting that, and it is quite wrong to suggest that money which has been used by the Coal Board for investment, either in subsidiaries or in its mainstream activities, has in some way reduced the stock of money available to the Coal Board to pay wages. It must be quite clear to

the House that investment monies are accounted for separately and come straight from the Government, and it would be quite wrong for investment monies to be used for revenue purposes. The difference is perfectly well-known and clear between capital and revenue moneys. So it would be totally wrong, either for new capital investment to be made at the expense of wages, or for capital receipts from sales to be applied to wages. There would be no question of that being allowed in the way I have described.

Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman obviously has great experience—and I credit him with that—in matters financial. He has just put the point that it would be quite wrong to make a "mix" between the investment responsibility of any concern and the responsibility to meet wages. But is it not the case that quite often when people—especially from his side of the House—are commenting on the current wage inflation and the problem of paying higher wages, they refer to the fact that one of the reasons why we have a comparatively low investment record in this country is because of the employers having had to pay higher wages? How does the hon. Gentleman explain that apparent paradox?

Mr. Ridley: I am talking about accounting for the sums under this Bill. It may well be that a trades union feels that there is a certain amount of money somewhere in the business and succeeds in increasing the wages, and the only way the company can manage to pay those increased wages is at the expense of its profits and, therefore, its ability to invest. This is very common. But what I am saying in this instance is that if monies are paid into the capital account, they cannot be used directly for financing further wage increases. This is an accounting point and not an economic point, and the hon. Gentleman is mixing the two. I wish it were true that the accounting procedures applied in real life economics, and this is one of the reasons why our wage inflation continues.
The second question I must deal with is the accounting procedures, and how the House will know what is happening to any of these monies. Again, under Section 31 of the 1946 Act, as amended by Clause 8 of this Bill, the Secretary of State


is empowered to specify the form of the accounts. A direction issued in 1968 already requires the Board to provide in respect of the reserve fund: first, the balance at the beginning of the year; secondly, any amounts transferred into or out of the fund during the year; and, thirdly, the investment or employment of the fund at the end of the year. So provisions for accounting for this money are already in existence and can be strengthened under Clause 8.
Thirdly, I was asked about the liability for taxation. It is of course absolutely true that the Board is subject to capital gains tax legislation, just as any other enterprise or individual would be. If an activity which might have been bought for £100,000 is sold for £200,000, then 30 per cent. of that gain of £100,000 will accrue in capital gains to the Exchequer, unless sales had been made which caused losses of a similar or greater amount, in which case the losses would cancel the gain. So I can assure my hon. Friend that there is the reserve fund already in existence which he seeks; there is no doubt at all about the monies belonging to the Coal Board and not to the Government; and I have explained exactly how the acounting for them will take place and how they will be subjected to tax treatment. In the light of what I have said, I feel there is no need for this Amendment to be pressed. I hope the House will accent that all the fears which have been expressed on this point are groundless.

Mr. Swain: I was rather surprised when the Under-Secretary intervened. He saw that several speakers were standing. and if he had waited a little he could have answered several questions at the same time. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) left in rather a huff. If I moved an Amendment and some hon. Gentleman opposite saw its advantages and spoke in support and explained why he supported it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did so eloquently, I should be very pleased.
It rather proves beyond doubt that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge moved his Amendment as a talking point and was not prepared to support it to the limit. This was fairly obvious to me. I am sorry to say this in the hon. Gentleman's absence. The hon.

Gentleman said that he was tired. We are all tired. Some of us—I do not include Ministers—are human. We all get tired, especially when we have been here until half past three yesterday morning.
I should like to take un one point mentioned by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge on which he was supported by the Minister. The hon. Gentleman said that if something cost £100,000 and it was sold for £200,000 there was a profit. I should like to illustrate what happened with the hiving off of Stavely Holdings which was nationalised in 1949. Compensation of £8¾ millions was paid to the Stavely company when it was nationalised. In 1961 an Order was laid in this House which resulted in Stavely Holdings being resold for £6 million after about £4½ million of the taxpayers' money had been ploughed into the company to modernise it. That is the philosophy of the Tory Government. Hon. Gentleman talk about £100,000 and £200,000, but they want to start reversing it and say, "£200,000, and we will flog it for £100,000 to our friends"—the vultures. This is what they mean when they talk about hiving off.
Experience has proved beyond doubt that any compensation which they pay will be far greater than the money which the vultures will pay them in return for their profitable industries on which all the research has been done arid the return on capital is beginning to come in. The Minister will sit there, as smug as a bug in a rug and, over a glass of port, will say: "Come on, friends, let us dispose of these few assets. Come on, you vultures, let us have you."
I should like to know what section of the 1946 Act the Minister prays in aid when he speaks about the accountability of the Coal Board. The hon. Gentleman has categorically stated what the moneys which would accrue during the hiving off process could be used for. We appreciate that under the Local Government Act money accrued from sales for capital investment can he spent only for certain things within the ambit of the local authority. What does the Minister mean when he says that the accountant would not pass the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover?
I should like to know in what section of what Act the Coal Board would be


inhibited from disposing of money which it accrued during the hiving off process to whatever source it desired. For example, the £24 million limit in the Money Resolution, to cover the social costs, which has to last three years, could, in the event of a catastrophe—which seems to overcome us every day under this Government—be expended in two years. The Coal Board then has to make a two-thirds contribution to the total social costs in the third year. Where would the money come from? Would this be classed as capital expenditure or would it have to borrow money if it had nothing in the kitty to fulfil its obligations under the social Clauses? Or would the Minister amend the Regulations to lower the benefits payable under the social Clauses? There are several alternatives and I should like to hear the answers.
I wish that the Amendment could be accepted. The Coal Board should have this reserve fund and should be allowed to dispose of it as it sees fit. Since 1947, we in the mining industry have been inhibited every time that we have met at Hobart House on the National Joint Negotiating Committee to discuss wages. We have always been categorically and rightly told by the Chairman of the Board, "There is a limit. That limit is at your disposal and you must help us to share it out". That limit has never come up to the expectation or the demands of the N.U.M.
Therefore. there was common sense in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. After all, sacrifices have had to be made around the joint national negotiating table because the Coal Board has been investing in these enterprises—and rightly so. If the Board is prevented from disposing of its fund acquired through the hiving-off process, why has it been allowed to use the profits from these joint enterprices to help to pay the wage increases negotiated this year? Where is the subtle difference between the two?

Mr. Peter Rees: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Swain: Someone's woken up.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman's speech has been a little soporific. I should have thought that there was a

fundamental difference between revenue and capital profits.

Mr. Swain: I appreciate that. In my pocket, I have always had no revenue and lots of capital losses. I understand not the subtle difference but the major difference between revenue and capital. For 23 years, while the hon. Member was sitting on his backside studying, I was doing my stint in the pit and on a local authority. I understand the difference between capital and revenue—[An HON. MEMBER: "Write your memoirs."] The hon. Member's memoirs could be written in the stop press of The Times.
What is the difference between spending profits from joint enterprises in boosting wages which are properly and constitutionally negotiated around the table and spending the capital assets acquired through disposal of sections of the industry? I do not think that the Minister can give me these answers. He smoothed over it very nicely. He was like a man who has just had his teeth out, eating jelly with a knife and fork. But he did not get any down. He did not prove anything.
I should like to enunciate further on the subtle differences between the two, and see whether he can satisfy us. I do not think he can. I give credit to the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge who left the Chamber just now. If I knew that several bobbies were after me with a gun, I would have left the Chamber. I would have gone out faster than the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the Minister will be scrupulously honest over this. It is about time that we had some honesty of purpose from him. I heard every speech made in Committee and every Ministerial reply. Had the Minister switched on a tape recording containing one of his speeches and then gone off to the Savoy Hotel, we would have got just as much commonsense from the tape as we got from him personally. I hope that tonight he will be more forthcoming and explain how this exercise can be done and why he has made his statement tonight without giving a concise explanation.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) put his finger on an important and


topical subject. There is no clear distinction between capital and income account when one considers the nationalised industries because of the pay set-up.
For example, postmen, but more particularly telephonists, are being told that they cannot have more than 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. because they are not exceeding their targets, and we are told that targets for the nationalised industries are fixed to enable a degree of self-financing to take place. In other words the employers tell the trade unions, "You cannot have more than a certain level of pay because some money must be held back to buy new equipment and for other investment purposes".
My hon. Friends are arguing that if, in the coal industry, past investments are to be hived off—remembering that the workers in the industry have had to accept lower rates of pay because of the need to make these investments—the workers are entitled to benefit from the sale of those investments. I remind my hon. Friends that while, during these debates, many golden eggs have been laid for our examination, we must be careful not to allow the Government to kill the goose.

Mr. Skinner: I agree with my hon. Friend. I pointed out, however, that the additional money raised by this hiving off process might be used to pay management consultants high fees to hive off further activities.

Mr. Golding: That is an important point. We must concentrate on the defence, because the mining industry in particular depends on diversification. If parts are hived off the miners will be worse off.
It is tragic that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) left in a huff, because he did not realise that this was the issue. The issue for us is not only the stealing of public money, though that is an important moral issue, but the fact that by weakening the industry the Government weaken the miners' situation. Hiving off the profitable parts of an nationalised industries leaves the work force worse off.
It is reasonable for anyone representing labour rather than capital to argue that the money must be used in the interests of labour, though there might be some

argument, as there is in a productivity deal, as to how it is split.

Mr. Ridley: Capital moneys must be paid back in the end. How would the hon. Gentleman propose to pay them back if he has used them meanwhile to pay higher wages?

Mr. Golding: They do not always have to be paid back. Investment in each nationalised industry comes from three sources. I hesitate to give a Minister a lecture at this time of night on something he should well know. One source is money borrowed from the Treasury, on which interest is paid. The second is self-financing from depreciation, obtained directly from revenue. The third is the profit of the industry.
I make no apology for talking about the telephone service as an example, because I know the three elements there rather better than in the mining industry. In the telephone service substantial profits—

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not stretch too far his examples from other industries.

Mr. Golding: Internal self-financing is itself a function of wages. The lower the wages, the more self-financing.
If the Minister denies that and will go to other Ministers and tell them that there is no relationship between wages and self-financing, I for one will be very pleased; but there is, so we are told.
In this instance, it is important that some of the benefits from the equipment obtained from self-financing should accrue to the work people, and this is what my hon. Friends have been arguing.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Clause 10

CITATION, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 7, line 3, at end insert:
'the Act of 1949' means the Coal Industry Act 1949.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: We have suggested, according to the procedure required, that there should be a debate on Third Reading because several of my hon. Friends, particularly those from mining constituencies, wish to make comments on Third Reading, especially those denied the opportunity of doing so earlier. Previous Coal Industry Bills have been taken on the Floor of the House and we asked that that should be the case with this. We thought it all the more necessary as this Bill, although it might appear to be an agreed Measure, or at any rate a Bill commanding general approval throughout the House, was a different kind of Bill altogether because of the way in which the Government approached the matter. It would he more accurate to describe it as two Bills jammed together. One part of the Bill we favoured and the other part we strongly opposed.
The part which we favoured—although we sought in Committee to make Amendments to it—was essential in the interests of the miners, the coal industry and the coal consumers. It was of the highest importance that that part of the Bill should reach the Statute Book at the specified time because under it the redundancy payments are made and provision is made for the borrowing powers of the Coal Board, without which the Board could not carry on. We wanted to see that part of the Bill reach the Statute Book at the required date.
On the other hand, the Government had incorporated in the Bill suggestions for hiving off sections of the Coal Board —provisions to which we were bitterly opposed. Therefore. while we wanted one part of the Bill, we did not want the other part of it—and that was a further reason why we should have had the opportunity to discuss the Bill on the Floor. The Government would not agree. That is a further reason why we think it necessary, despite the lateness of the hour, that opportunity should be given for hon. Members who have not been able to participate in the debate now to do so, and for other hon. Members, particularly those from mining constituencies, to have an opportunity to comment on the Bill as we find it on Third Reading.
I will not make a lengthy speech, but there are a few matters on which I wish to comment. First, there are some questions which have arisen in Committee and have not been adequately dealt with, and which we hope to try to remedy by Amendments in another place. The Under-Secretary of State did not reply to my remarks on Report about the subsection dealing with the negative procedure for parliamentary approval of any proposal or instructions to be given to the Board. He will have an opportunity of replying at the end of the debate and he can then tell us his intentions. If the Government do not take steps to ensure that Clause 7(3) is governed by the Statutory Instrument procedure which we propose, we shall seek ourselves to secure that in another place. But I hope that the Government will agree to do it, for the case is overwhelming, and certainly the hon. Member made no attempt to reply to it.
When discussing coal-mining activities, the hon. Member said that the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and others, which sought a new definition of the activities covered by those words, did not in fact define them. He said that these words had not been properly defined. He will find that they have been defined in other Acts, and we shall seek to get that matter, too, remedied in another place. I am sorry that the Government have not been prepared to do so. But even if these alterations were to take place—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am certain that he will set a good example to newer hon. Members who will speak later by confining himself strictly to what is in the Bill and not discuss what might be in it.

Mr. Foot: fully accept, as all hon. Members must, that debate on Third Reading must be confined to what is in the Bill, but I think that it is proper for me, Mr. Speaker, to discuss Clause 7 as it stands and relate it to the discussions we have had and to some of the Amendments which have been debated. I am discussing the effect of the Clause and why I think that it is still unsatisfactory, even on the limited basis on which we have been criticising that aspect of it. I think that is a legitimate argument for me


to put. We do not regard the Government's proposals for providing Parliamentary approval of these measures as satisfactory and we shall continue to seek to improve them.
One of the main arguments on which debate has turned has been on the concept of accountability. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who is no longer with us, and other hon. Members have sought to defend what the Government are doing in Clause 6 on the ground of accountability, saying that they were provisions to make the N.C.B. more effectively accountable to Parliament.
I am strongly in favour of making the Board and all the other nationalised industries properly accountable to Parliament. One of the reasons we are in favour of public ownership is because we believe that industries should be accountable. Most of my hon. Friends will agree with me when I say that few of us think that we have yet perfected the system of accountability in the publicly-owned industries, let alone in the case of private industries, which are not accountable at all. We still have to devise better methods of securing proper accountability to Parliament by the publicly-owned industries.
Had Clause 6 provided a more effective means whereby the N.C.B. would be accountable to Parliament, many of us would have looked with favour upon it, but the Government, by introducing the Clause in this form, have injured the whole cause of trying to improve the accountability of publicly-owned industries because they have tied up in the Bill the whole conception of making the publicly-owned industries accountable to Parliament and the nation with the idea of a Government pursuing a vendetta against the coal mining industry.
The result is—as in other nationalised industries—that the N.C.B. has had to spend much time over the last months fending off attacks by the Government. Instead of the Board applying itself to ways in which accountability might be improved, it has, rightly and naturally, said, "Here is an attack upon us; we must see how we can best defend ourselves."
It is idle for the Minister and his colleagues to say that Clause 6 is quite separate from Clause 7. They are tied up together inextricably. Clause 6 is

defended on the ground of accountability and Clause 7, which gives the Government power to make these orders which could produce the hiving-off, is intimately associated with it. The Government have no claim on the ground of accountability for defending this part of the Bill. I fear that they have greatly injured or set back for many hours the possibility of examining the process of making great publicly-owned industries better accountable to Parliament by associating it with the general attack they are making on the operations of the Coal Board. Anyone who listened to the tone and temper in which hon. Members opposite aproached this Bill in Committee would confirm what I am saying.
It is outrageous that hon. Members opposite should have constantly derided the activities of the Coal Board—the North Sea operations, the development of chemicals and other different forms of activity. One would have thought that hon. Members opposite would congratulate the Board on having the spirit and adventure to go in for these activities. Instead we have had nothing but a steady drip of innuendo and malice directed against the industry.
What do hon. Members opposite think will be the effect of their approach on people who work in these publicly-owned industries? They have already by their methods driven the former Chairman out of the service of the Coal Board. Lord Robens indicated that he did not accept the Government's invitation to continue in his post partly because of what the Government proposed to do in this Bill. Whatever may be the virtues or vices of Lord Robens, it is a pity that the Government should have driven him out on those grounds.
He has been able to move to other pastures, but what about the people responsible for producing the coal? What do the Government think is the effect on them of measures incorporated in this Bill about which Lord Robens has said, "I will not stay to operate such measures"? But somebody must operate them if we are to have the coal.
Therefore, the injury which the Government are doing perpetually to the publicly-owned industries is of the highest importance. We have a coal industry Bill every three or four years. This Bill will govern the affairs of the industry for


the next three or four critical years which could be years of considerable opportunity. Many of us are very glad to see some of the prospects for the industry which are emerging.
Most of my hon. Friends who are staying late tonight to debate this Bill stayed late for a debate on the coal industry in 1967. Some people say that these lengthy debates throughout the night do not affect policy very much. They may say that they are a waste of time. I do not think that they are. Unfortunately for the country, the 1967 debate throughout the night did not affect policy as we would have wished it to be affected, but, as on that occasion, we are seeking to assure people working in the industry that there are Members of Parliament who will defend their interests. Throughout the debate in 1967 the Labour Government were warned what would happen if the industry was run down at the rate which was then proposed. We seek to renew those warnings, but in the different context of today. Recent developments have led to some of the proposals in the Bill. A remarkable transformation has taken place during the last three or four years. The prophecies of the experts have been confounded. The prophesies confirmed have been those of the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board. In the past three or four years we have probably closed a hundred pits which should not have been closed. If they had been kept open our economic situation would have been considerably stronger than it is.
These were matters which could have been foreseen. They were foreseen, but not exactly in the terms in which they have developed. This is what we seek to resist and what we have been fighting against in our discussions on the Bill. Unfortunately, three or four years ago, the pressures which came from the oil lobby, and from others who advocated the claims of different fuels—as they had every right to do—influenced the situation to such a degree that probably we closed a hundred pits which, in the interests of the nation and not merely the miners, it would have been wiser to keep open. That is why we appeal to the Government not to injure the position by the Bill when the whole situation is

changing and when it is evident that no one knows from one day to the next what will be the price of coal and the price of oil is rocketing up much more steeply than the price of coal. There is a double standard in these matters, both in the country and in the House. We hear a great deal about the price of coal, steel and publicly produced commodities, but not so much about the price of oil, chemicals and cement.
In the opening discussions on the Bill we sought to say to the hon. Gentleman what we had a right to say, especially to a Conservative Government, "For heaven's sake, at such a critical moment in the coal industry's history, make sure that you take no action which will injure the possibility of rebuilding the industry to assist the nation."
If we are to use this opportunity, and if we are to get the fuel which the nation will require in the next two or three years—and coal will play an essential part in providing the energy required—we have to have many more miners. A hopeful aspect of the present situation is that we should get still more miners. There has been a turn up in the right direction. It has not gone far yet. It will have to go considerably further if we are to get the greatly increased quantities of coal needed to deal with the situation where stocks have fallen so low that we are scouring the world to obtain coal which we can import only at £5 per ton more than our own.
This is the situation which the Government should have been dealing with. A responsible Government, especially a Conservative Government so deeply suspected for historical reasons in the mining areas, in its own interests and in the interests of the nation, should have said, "We are not taking a single step to injure the possibility of trying to mobilise national backing for increasing our coal supplies". It should have been a high priority for the Government. But not at all.
The Government could have introduced the Coal Industry Bill which had been left to them by the previous Government. They could have made Amendments, as in Committee we sought Amendments which have been pressed for before by the N.U.M., on the redundancy payments


scheme and on other aspects of the matter. All these matters could have meant an improvement even on the Bill proposed by the Labour Government In any case, a Conservative Government coming in with any sense of national responsibility would surely have said, "We will not incorporate into the Bill provisions which will be deeply offensive to the mining community". But the Government have done just that.
It is almost as if the Government had felt it incumbent upon them to communicate to the mining areas, "We are just the same old Tories, or perhaps we are a little worse. We are more interested in seeing how we can hive parts of the industry off which can be sold to other sections of the community"—whether or not those other sections are called their friends and whether or not this is called loot, which is not a dreadful word to use in this connection. That is what it is. It was the height of folly and irresponsibility for a Government in this critical situation to say, "We would prefer to run the risk of alienating great sections of the mining community in our determination to carry through our own experiments, because we do not worry about what will be the psychological effect of these provisions".
The Minister for Industry is supposed to be one of the chief architects of the policy. He should have had the nerve and intelligence to have restrained himself and those who think that this is the proper way to deal with the situation.
I say again what we have said in previous coal debates. We on this side have the right to say it, because those of us representing mining constituencies tried to warn a Labour Government three years ago on this subject. We said "For heaven's sake be careful about running down this industry, because you can run it down, but it is very difficult to run it up again". That is exactly the process which the country is now engaged in, in a situation in which there is not only a national coal shortage but a coal shortage all over Western Europe and in fact all over the world. One of the critical questions facing the world today is how we are to increase energy supplies.
The national has these supplies at its disposal. To make use of them it is necessary for the Government to put into

reverse what has been happening in the industry over the past four or five years. If a few months ago the incoming Conservative Government had had any imagination they would have appreciated what they should have done in such circumstances. We tried to warn them. We had a debate on coal before the Tories introduced the Bill containing these offensive Clauses 6 to 8. We tried to warn them about the situation in the industry. We tried to warn them at the time of the strike. The consequences of what happened in the industry are still arising in different areas, as those of us who return every weekend to talk to miners in our constituencies understand. There are deep psychological or political problems, however one likes to describe them. There are deep problems of that nature to be solved primarily because the industry is unique. Miners can be obtained only from mining communities. Therefore, if the industry is to be rebuilt as the nation requires, the morale of mining communities is a matter of primary national importance.
This Government have dealt with the question with a scandalous flippancy. They have shown no appreciation of what is required, despite warnings from every quarter. They could have heeded the warnings and introduced a Bill which, whatever minor criticisms we might have made of it, could have received our acclaim. Instead, they introduce a Bill which indicates that they are more interested in the profits to be extracted from one side than in rebuilding the whole composition generally.
It almost seems from listening to some of the debates that the Tories would rather have these sections of the coal industry run by private industry for private profit if the private profit was foreign private profit than they would have them run by publicly owned industry owned by British nationals.
When we introduced Amendments saying that we must make sure, if we sell these off that they must not be sold to people outside the country, hon. Members opposite say that that is interfering with free trade, capitalism and all the sacred principles in which they believe. This is an astonishing performance. Some of us were shocked when hon. Gentlemen opposite got up and defended the ideas of laissez faire that are 100 years or more


out of date. It was an appalling exhibition by people who apparently think that the cash nexus must take pride over all other considerations. Patriotism goes out of the window. Where have I heard all these phrases before? Of course, I read them in Karl Marx!
It is an astonishing achievement of hon. Gentlemen in that they have turned themselves into some grisly fulfilment of the Marxist prophecy. That is what they are. We see them now through an impressionistic blur, and that very often reveals the truth better than any other method. In saying that private property must take priority over every other consideration they have almost fulfilled the Marxist prophecy in a way that could hardly have been expected. It is not only a question of the injury the Government are doing by the acceptance and toleration of massive unemployment in all areas where the mining industry operates.
It may be that the increase in the number of those leaving the pits is the reason for the unemployment in these areas. I do not like to believe that it is the only cause, because I believe that it is necessary in the national interest to have a thriving, prosperous mining industry. The country will need that for many years to come. If we are to secure that we have to be prepared to pay the miners decent wages. We must be prepared to see that their wages do not fall below the national average.
That is why I was not in the least discomfited the other day when the Prime Minister made it almost an accusation against me that I had been in favour of the full miners' claim. I am in favour of the full claim because it is necessary to enable the miners to get the fuel which is required by the nation. It is not only a question of wages. It is a question of making it clear, from this House of Commons, that we understand the problems which the ordinary mining communities have to face, that we understand how we are to secure the numbers of people necessary to get the coal. The most essential thing about the industry is getting the miners. To do that we have to pass legislation which can he recognised from one end of the country to the other, in all the coalfields, as showing an understanding of these problems.
It is only from this side of the House, and in particular from the mining constituencies, that this understanding can come. The Government have made a grievous error in introducing their doctrinaire ideas into a Bill of this kind. They had the chance to show a glimmer of generosity and imagination about the industry. But they have shown no such thing. We have had no signs of those qualities from the Government. We on this side also have to learn from what has happened in the past three years. We have to learn from the prophecies made in the 1967 debate. What many of us have sought to do today is to look forward, to the period four or five years on, when we start afresh. We have tried to give advice to the Government about how the coal industry may be built up in the national interest as a whole. I say to my hon. Friends who have been patient enough to stay throughout the debate, that these debates are of major importance for the nation. We will do all we can to repair the damage which hon. Gentlemen opposite have done.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: This Bill contains the profoundest implications for coalmining of any legislation since the original nationalising statute of 25 years ago. It should be seen as the deadliest of sick jokes, yet laboured by this sick Government of economic perverts which have introduced the Bill as a kind of silver jubilee celebration of nationalisation, a celebration which would have been highly appreciated in the days of my illustrious compatriot and coalmaster, Davies the Ocean!
When the coal mines were nationalised 25 years ago the overwhelming argument for the course of action proposed was not a doctrinaire one about capitalism, or socialism, or Keynesianism, or Galbraithianism. or any other "ism". It was simply the fact that the coal industry was derelict—bankrupt—and that if Britain were to set up in business again after the war, then No. 1 priority was that "Old King Coal" had to be nursed back to health—after a long period of abuse, under-nourishment and ill health. The industry was in need of a massive injection of capital, and the only realistic answer was nationalisation. It was a piece of typical commonsensical


British realism which brought about the nationalisation of coal—

Mr. Speaker: Order. 1 must ask the hon. Member to come to this Bill. He is not in order in going into all this past history.

Mr. Ellis: I was getting quickly on to the point of the Bill. I was trying to lead up to it by going through the historical development. The position now, 25 years after nationalisation, is that the whole world has moved on and Davies the Ocean sounds like some faraway coelacanth of the deep, and even the 1945 Labour Government seem to have acquired a kind of historical antiquity. But it is precisely at this moment that Her Majesty's Government suddenly see a great need to hive off, to plunder, some of the more succulent offshoots of the Act of 1946.
The question that forces itself on to one more than any other is: why are the Government so dedicated not merely to this piece of tomfoolery but to following what appears to be a kind of economic flat-earthism? If only we could once again have some typical commonsense British realism, we on this side would be prepared to shrug off such flippancies as the pubs of Carlisle; but to introduce this hiving-off part of the Bill is so manifestly doctrinaire and mischievous that the country must see the shallow, malicious and dangerous spite that oozes out of parts of this Measure.
I have nothing against a particular action being doctrinaire, and, indeed, it is a wise man who has some guiding start or other, but the doctrine must be based on sound practical experience. The present doctrine fails in this. I have thought and thought about possible economic merits, but I cannot see any. I have tried to dream up possible social benefits, but all I get are nightmares. I have sniffed for the possible political merits, even of the most cynical and partisan kind, but I lose the scent.
So I come back to the only conclusion open to me—that the hiving off is no more than a stubborn adherence to outmoded ideas of a private enterprise market economy and a taste for rich pickings. I can just see the Prime Minister in his stubborn petulance insisting that he is not to be pushed around, and to prove it he takes hiving off into that traditional

cockpit, the coal mining industry. In the Bill, the Prime Minister is insisting that he will be cock on his own midden. I resist the temptation of paraphrasing the words of a former illustrious Conservative Prime Minister in the ringing phrase about "some chicken, some neck". I will let hon. Members paraphrase it for themselves.
In this slavish insistence, the Prime Minister and the Government will do tremendous harm to the coal industry just when the signs, for the first time since 1957, are most promising. I talked earlier about the deadliest of sick jokes. The deadly part, which could prove fatal, is the harm that will be done to the morale of the mining industry.
Fifty years ago, what mattered in an industry was the product. In the case of the coalmining industry, it was coal, in the steel industry it was steel, and so on. Hiving off, had any been needed, would have been regarded as sensible and not harmful to the major product line. This was because the commercial and technical conditions of the time were static.
Today, when nothing is static and all is flux, what matters most is not simply the product. What matters is the ability to develop the opportunity for human invention. Any industry which is denied the opportunity of spreading into natural new developments will be in grave danger of withering and dying. But any industry which already has grown branches naturally and found them fruitful will most certainly stultify and perish if the fruitful branches are lopped off. This is the clear risk now facing the coal industry, the old enemy of Tory Governments and, therefore, due for the chop.
On the passage of the Bill into law, I shall say a prayer for all coal consumers and for all coal miners, and I shall extend my deepest sympathies to whoever is Chairman of the National Coal Board, because he, poor fellow, will be on a hiding to nothing.

1.22 a.m.

Mr. Concannon: This is not one Bill but, perhaps I should say, two Bills. That is how we have to look at it. It comes in, possibly, two halves, with a neutral piece in the middle. The first two Clauses are taken directly from the Labour Government's Bill, which, in spite of certain objections and anomalies, we could have accepted. On the neutral part


of the Bill, I must come back to Clause 3, on which I am not quite satisfied and on which I shall have to act the coward and reserve my judgment for some future time.
When we come, however, to Clauses 6 to 8, what the Bill will have to be judged on, and be judged are in the coalmining industry, is how much confidence it puts into the industry at its most critical time for a considerable number of years. All I can say to the Minister is that mineworkers, management and everybody in the industry are deeply suspicious of the Bill.
I do not want to vie with my two colleagues from Derbyshire, or with my hon. Friends who represent Yorkshire constituencies, about who has the most militant Left-wing area in the coalfields. I have no claim to represent any such area, and I must be honest about it. I must, however, warn the Minister that if he starts hiving off parts of the industry under Clause 7, all hell will be let loose within the chambers of the National Union of Mineworkers throughout the country.
On Monday I was involved with my Nottinghamshire council—and I cannot vie with the history of my Derbyshire and Yorkshire colleagues—and that council passed a resolution to fight these hiving-off Clauses with all its means. The members tried to put me on the spot, and asked why we could not turn down this Bill and do the same as we have been doing with the Industrial Relations Bill. When I told them that this was a kind of package deal and that we had to take it or leave it in regard to our redundant miners, one delegate said that it was not fair. I asked him, "What the hell do you expect? This is a Tory Government. This is what we are going to be up against with this Bill." But when my Nottingham miners talk about using all in their power to fight this Bill to its logical conclusion, I have to warn them that all the ramifications of the Industrial Relations Bill will be involved, and we shall have to start deciding what are unfair practices. I do not want to go to the council one Monday morning and find that, instead of holding a meeting at the N.U.C.M. offices at Bury Hill in Nottingham, I have to go to Lincoln prison to find my delegates hived-off to

gaol under the Clauses in the Industrial Relations Bill through fighting the hiving-off Clauses in this Bill.
All I can say is that if the Minister, after having looked into the industry to find the most lucrative parts, starts selling them off to the vultures, he will be asking for trouble from within the industry itself; and that is the last thing we want in the coalmining industry. What this Bill should have done is not to knock the bottom out of the industry, but to give it and the lads confidence to get on with the job and tackle the problems, so that we can have the fuel energy that we need. We have a backlog to make up, and if this Bill becomes law the backlog will become even worse. I plead with the Minister to forget this hiving-off Clause. It is not worth the trouble it will bring him.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. Harper: The only palatable features I can find in this Bill are that it extends until 30th March, 1974, the existing scheme of redundancy and other payments for pit closures, and raises the limit on the National Coal Board's accumulated deficit, if any.
I have been reading the papers today, and I have come to the conclusion that the figure of £24 million for grants which is in the Bill cannot be reached. That is contrary to present opinion, and I give three reasons why I think that way. First, there is the slower tempo of pit closures—and it has now been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have closed pits too hurriedly over the last three or four years. Secondly, there is the changing trend in the industry in relation to manpower. Over the past few years we have seen pits closed and men leaving the industry never to return.
On reading The Times today, I found on page 18 that during the week ending 13th February 446 men were recruited to the industry. The total is now 2,600. That proves that there is still a future in this industry. Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) mentioned that this is the first continuous upturn since 1957–13 years. It is the first glimmer of light which we, as miners, have seen since that disastrous White Paper on Fuel in 1967.
The third reason is the new apprenticeship scheme under which it is hoped to


recruit 600 boys a year. It is hoped that the positive provisions of the new scheme and the career structure will drastically cut the present wastage which runs at 50 per cent. In other words, under the present system of every two boys coming into the industry one leaves or falls by the wayside.
The unpalatable features of the Bill are Clauses 6, 7 and 8. These Clauses have been well ventilated. They give power to the Secretary of State to call for a report of the Board's diversified activities, and further power to give directions to the Board and to make further provisions as to annual accounts of the Board.
In our opinion, all activities of the Coal Board are directly concerned with improving its profitability by marketing coal to the best advantage and making use of the assets which are necessary to the carrying on of an efficient coal industry business.
It will not be unknown to hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who is not in his place now, that many of these activities were developed or acquired by the colliery companies prior to nationalisation for good commercial reasons. It is also a fact that similar activities are undertaken by coal producers in other countries.
Clauses 6, 7 and 8 are bad. To echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), all hell will be let loose if these provisions are carried out and the Secretary of State gives orders to the Coal Board to hive off.
My final point, really in the nature of a question concerns the selling price of the assets. How will the Board, if it gets a direction to dispose of any of its lucrative activities, dispose of its interests without its partners' consent? How will the rights and obligations of the respective parties be unscrambled if such a method is undertaken?
I understand that we are not going to divide the House against Third Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said that the Bill was a sort of package deal. We require the redundancy payments to look after miners who will be thrown on the scrap heap at the age of 55. When a miner

has had his redundancy pay at the age of 55 to 58 and finds himself out of work, there is no possibility in the areas about which we are talking of his finding alternative employment. The only thing which we can accept, although it is a package deal, is the redundancy payment scheme. The other things which go with it are very unpalatable. We shall just have to hope that the Secretary of State will never have occasion to use his powers under Clauses 6, 7 and 8.

1.35 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Clauses 1 and 2 affect pit closures and redundancy payments. In my constituency, two pits have closed over the past three years. The first is Denaby Main, which was absorbed by Cadeby Main, which has a tragic history. A pit closure leaves in its wake men left out on a limb. At the other end of my constituency, where I live, is Wombwell Main, which closed, leaving in its wake men who are now feeling the draught because they are not catered for as they thought they would be under the redundancy scheme.
In the first area there is 6 per cent. unemployment and in the other the rate is 5 per cent. These men find it impossible to get other work when their three years of benefit nears an end. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider added benefits for these men. Perhaps he would also consider giving men of 60 five years' benefits. It is hard if their redundancy payments end at the age of 63 when it is almost impossible for them to get another job.
The Minister should determine what kind of language is used in the reports which he can call for under Clause 6. It could adversely affect the viability of these subsidiaries if they think that their reports could affect their future. It would be a loss to the economy and to the Coal Board if, during the transitional period between the report being received and the hiving off, the subsidiaries' efficiency is affected. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
Clause 7 is a pernicious Clause, giving the Secretary of State tremendous power to sell off these very important activities. I do not understand why any Government should so want to harm a nationalised industry as to deny it the commercial rights and opportunities available to private enterprise. The Coal Board has


proved itself more efficient than the general run of industry, taking into account the o.m.s. and rate of production. Why do they give it the impression that it will not be encouraged to be efficient but will be left looking after only that part of the industry which cannot be made as viable as private industry? There is great fear about the harsh manner in which the Government appear to want to treat this industry, which has a tremendous responsibilty to our economy.
The Minister gave the impression that he is only calling for reports and that no decision has been taken about hiving off. But even if Clause 7 is not operated in that way, all nationalised industries are fearing for the future.
Morale in the coal mining industry is low and needs encouraging. It is vital that we have a viable mining industry, particularly considering the unrest in the oil-producing countries of the Middle East. It would be totally wrong of the Government to allow this fuel industry to go down and therefore hope that they will never put Clause 7 into operation, not only because of the harm that it would do to the industry, but because of the way in which it would damage a great national asset.

1.42 a.m.

Mr. John Biffen: The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) and I have at least this in common; we both represent constituencies which have recently been affected by the rundown in the coal-mining industry. Because our constituents have suffered pit closures, we welcome the early Clauses of the Bill. He was mainly concerned, as 1 shall be, with the later Clauses.
I wish, at the outset, however, to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry for having successfully, courteously and single-handed dealt with the Committee stage of this complex and important Bill. I have no wish to appear obsequious, but there is something touching when one of his most silent supporters in Committee should be one who has endured until this hour on Third Reading. Without appearing to be patronising, I assure my hon. Friend that he has undertaken a

great task and that we have been impressed by the way he has conducted himself.
A great deal of argument has raged over Clauses 6 and 7, both inside and outside the House, and at times it has been conducted, in personal terms, against the Minister for Industry and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and I have found this wholly distasteful. It has been suggested that they are the authors of a policy of disengagement in the nationalised industries, as symbolised by Clauses 6 and 7, in such a way that the Secretary of State is some hapless victim in this process—that they are the organ grinders and he is the monkey.

Mr. Varley: indicated assent.

Mr. Biffen: I see the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) nodding in assent. It was he who, in relation to this part of the Bill, used the phrase, "John Davies' insertion Clause". Leaving aside whether or not Clauses 6 and 7 are particularly desirable and model forms of legislation, we know that there cannot be much doubt about their authorship. It was at Blackpool last October that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said of the nationalised industries:
These vast undertakings need to shed peripheral activities that are in no sense in the mainstream of their work.
I regard my right hon. Friend as the main author of the Bill, and my hon Friends the Minister and the Under-Secretary as his loyal assistants. So much for the argument that somehow or other the Bill is a perverse product of the ideological dispositions of my hon. Friends. No analysis of the political record will sustain the attempts being made to suggest that there is any rift or division in the Department.
The debate has naturally very much concerned itself with the industry. I very much endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) about there being encouraging signs that recruiting is on an upward trend. The Bill comes at a stage in the life cycle of the coal industry when it looks as though it will become a fashionable fuel again.
I was amused as ever—almost entranced—by the scepticism which the


hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) poured upon previous energy forecasts. I yield almost to none in my scepticism of economic forecasts, and agree that if we wanted to erect monuments to mal-forecasting the energy industry would be a rich source for such an exercise.
In the debates in Committee and tonight there have been two totally different strands of approach, the realistic and the nostalgic. I pay full tribute to a most thoughtful and penetrating speech by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes). It was realistic, and I could not help contrasting it with the other-worldliness which so often characterised the speeches of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), whom I counsel to take a course in realism from his hon. Friend.

Mr. Swain: I enjoyed the historical lecture by my hon. Friend. But when he and the hon. Gentleman have had as many blisters on their hands as they have had on their backsides they will be living in a different world from the one they are living in today.

Mr. Biffen: We are always entertained by the autobiographical reminiscences of the hon. Member for Derby, North-East, which helped make the business of the Committee move that much more cheerfully. I note his intervention.
But this is the nub of the entire Bill. I am not one to feel any great sense of ideological commitment to the Bill. I am happy to give my assent to it. I think that it is a Bill particularly apposite to an industry which will probably move into a much more challenging and dynamic economic environment than that which it has experienced over recent years.
One of the difficulties, of course, is how management will respond to such a situation of fluid change. The House has to grapple, and certainly it has not yet grappled successfully, with the whole question of accountability, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale so properly pointed out. Much of my thinking on this derives from having read Labour Party publications and I think that it was "Labour and the New Society", published in the mid-1950s, which pointed to a kind of contemporary feudal aristocracy of the managerial elite who

were so little responsible to anyone, a kind of Galbraithian language to which I am sorry that I cannot address myself, because of the hour, with more precision than that; except to say that our pressures in Parliament in recent years have been to try to facilitate the diversification and merging of industries.
One of the most difficult tasks to require of any management is to give up something to which it is already committed, and very little of the legislation which we have put on the Statute Book has been directed to that end. But I suspect that some of the most courageous and long-sighted actions of management in our contemporary industrial society have been to get rid of rather than extend business operations and release assets for use by those who feel that they can take command and manage them more profitably.
Therefore, the question to which the House must address itself is what we can do in some limited and experimental fashion about industries with which the House has a particular relationship, the nationalised industries. In Clauses 6 and 7 my right hon. Friends are clearly trying to move towards a situation in which they may exercise pressure upon managements towards a policy of divestment. I do not relish political interference in this direction. I should regard this as a holding operation, a second best. I quote again the speech of the Secretary of State:
Finally, a word about the nationalised industries. Private capital must be brought back to play its questioning rôle in the development and management of these businesses".
That is a much more profound observation, at least it has much more profound implications, than the proposals contained in Clauses 6 and 7.
None the less, the action now being taken by my right hon. Friends is important and I welcome it, the more so because they are prepared to come to Parliament, and I very much welcome that negative resolution will now operate in the area in which divestment is sought. Indeed, I shall not be distressed if my hon. Friend feels disposed to concede the point requested by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. In the spirit of good nature, the hon. Member seems happy for the House of Lords to be the chosen agent for him to achieve that end. I should not object.


This is important, because we are moving into an area in which we have not trodden before. It touches on a continuing and complex relationship between the House and the managerial élite who, in effect, are little responsible to anyone. If we can bring about some kind of pressure which will require a more popularly based sense of responsibility among the management of large industrial enterprise in this country, we shall have made considerable progress. But it is not a policy which will be welcomed by the managerial élite. They will mobilise all their resources against it. But I hope that my hon. Friends will not be deflected from their course, which I believe to be wise and statesmanlike.

1.56 a.m.

Mr. Hardy: At this late hour I hope that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments. It has been held on these benches that the Minister for Industry and the Under-Secretary of State, who are present, are the authors of the programme of disengagement in the public sector. I am a nonconformist and I have an innate subscription to the originality of sin—and I put the origin of this much earlier than the arrival on the political scene of those two hon. Members.
I welcome on behalf of my constituents this modest measure of social justice for those people who are sore beset by industrial change. It is a modest provision and acceptable. I do not know whether many of my constituents will be particularly interested in the Bill at two o'clock in the morning, although while I am speaking several hundred miners in my constituency are at work, and they are interested in the Bill. Moreover, thousands of miners who will be going to work in another two or three hours may be even more interested in it. They will be reassured to a certain extent by the provisions in the earlier Clauses, but the improvement to morale which those will bring will be destroyed by the later provisions in the Bill.
The later Clauses will do considerable harm. They are economically unwise and they are an extension of the importation of prejudice which at this stage in our history and in our economic position are

harmful to the nation's interest. My hon. Friends have spoken at length about morale, and I will not labour that point, but it is very serious. Clauses 6 and 7 seriously reduce the prospects of advantage in the mining industry. They are not merely unwise but extremely shallow.
The Minister will perhaps forgive me if I say that he has clucked comfortingly during the Committee stage—and I use the word "cluck" because birds of many varieties frequently figured during the deliberations of the Bill, and the Minister will be as able as I am to list the birds which have been mentioned. He has clucked comfortingly at us in an endeavour to assuage our suspicions and to reduce the volume of our opposition to Clauses 6 and 7. Indeed, if his reassurances mean anything at all, they mean that the objectionable Clauses will have a meagre effect. He was quick to reassure us that the effects of the Clauses would not go as far as he expected them to.
But I doubt whether the Secretary of State will be able to resist the pressures to hive-off which will arise as a result of the desires of those who covet the profitable activities of the Board. If he does intend to resist the greed that is clearly evident in our society, these Clauses will merely become a placatory exercise for the Tory faithful, a piece of political gimmickry pandering to the simple acquisitive urges of the Government's supporters. If it is a gimmick, it is very expensive because it will do a great deal of harm to the coal industry at a time when we need it to generate confidence.
There is evidence not merely of lack of wisdom but of inconsistency. I asked the hon. Gentleman a number of questions about these Clauses in Committee. I asked whether he felt the Board was right to engage in the commercial disposal of waste products or to make commercial use of its spare capacity, and whether he approved in principle an involvement or relationship of the Board, as part of the public sector, in co-operation with or in partnership with companies in the private sector. The only direct answer I got was when he said he had no objection to the Board operating in partnership with a company in the private sector.


In the Second Reading debate on the National Coal Board (Additional Powers) Act, 1966 the hon. Gentleman—whose speech I read with some surprise the other day—referred to the Board's activities in
… brickmaking, concrete, flooring, damp courses … tar products, in pitch polymers and other aspects of the chemical industry.
He added:
It is a substantial and wide-ranging list of activities, but far and away the major part of what is already being done is the logical extension of its primary function of the mining, processing and marketing of coal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 367.]
These ancilliary activities, in other words, were a logical extension of mining
If these activities were logical in 1966, nothing has happened in economic development since which suggests that diversification is wrong or disadvantageous. If it was logical then, to take another position today is to be both illogical and partisan in the extreme. The hon. Gentleman is in a position to advise the Secretary of State on what action he should take. I trust that he will not advise him to hive off any of those activities which he mentioned in 1966. I hope that he will ensure that the provisions of Clauses 6 and 7 will not be put into effect, because many of us still cling to the view that the powers in Sections 2 and 3 of the 1946 Act are still adequate for the right hon. Gentleman to conduct himself in a proper manner towards the industry. That means that Clauses 6, 7 and 8 are not merely foolish but superfluous, and a danger at a time when we need to get the Board in a robust position for a better future based on the springboard of success.
We now seem in a great rush to go European. Only a few days ago the country monetarily went decimal. I suppose that it will not be long before we are driving on the right-hand side of the road. We are becoming very much more Continental. It is a great pity that the Government, which is so keen on going into Europe and getting us to adapt ourselves to Continental ways, does not allow the Coal Board to be operated in the same way as the coal board of one of our possible partners in the Common Market is operated, namely, the Dutch State Mines.
These are unwise, superfluous and foolish measures, and 1971 is not the year in which the Tory bull should be myopically wandering around the Coal Board's china shop.

2.6 a.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I marvel at the arrogance of the Government in introducing the Bill, the way in which they have introduced it, and the way in which hon. Members opposite have expressed their views on it. There has been reference to management but a complete disregard for the miners—the people who have created the wealth and economic strength upon which this country has rested over the last 100 years or so. The Bill is an act of political and economic folly. In the last eight months the Government have created confusion, chaos and despondency in the economy, particularly in the rural and development areas.
There is a commitment in Clause 2 about extending the power to make redundancy payments schemes. On Report the Minister spoke rather sympathetically, but, as a Welshman, I must warn him that I never trust a sympathetic Tory. We have learned from the 1920s and 1930s that their sympathy is not good enough, and we will not tolerate sympathy and leave it at that in future. However, I hope that his statement that he will be sympathetic when devising new redundancy payments schemes will be carried out.
The 1967 scheme, which lasted for three years, must be viewed in connection with the regional development policy of the time. The redundancy payments scheme in the 1967 Act was devised in part as a holding operation. Until June last year the emphasis was on the creation of new job opportunities and job potential in the old mining communities where collieries had closed at far too accelerated a rate, even under the Labour Government. The emphasis was on massive investment in advance factories and investment grants. As I say, the 1967 redundancy payments scheme was in part a holding operation. Many miners were prepared to accept this until 18th June. Once it is accepted that in essence the regional development policy has been destroyed, it must also be accepted that the 1967 scheme of three years is inadequate, because the abandonment of the regional development


policy means that there will not be job opportunities or potential for miners over 55 who have lost their jobs. When they reach the age of 58 they will be looking forward to six, seven or eight years of nothing, of no opportunity, potential or hope.
I strongly urge the Government, when preparing their new scheme, to place in the redundancy payments scheme the provision that a miner over 55 will be entitled to redundancy pay in either of two conditions; first, until he is 65, or, second, until he gets another job. In that situation the Bill would be far more acceptable than it is.
I have sat patiently through the Report stage and listened to some hon. Members opposite wondering and worrying about the cost which might be involved in the new scheme without any notion or regard to the cost that the miners of Britain, the miners of the anthracite coal area of South Wales, have had to pay, the penalties, the misfortunes, the health hazards and all that is associated with this industry.
Sir Sydney Ford, President of the National Union of Mineworkers, has pointed out that in many cases over the last two or three years it is not just miners over 55 who are in dire difficulties in obtaining new job opportunities, but we have miners over 50, who are not qualified for redundancy payment, who get nothing and will be faced with 10 or 15 years of no hope whatever.
Some years ago the then Ministry of Labour carried out a survey in the form of a questionnaire of the situation of the unemployed in Wales as to the characteristic of the total unemployed. Fifty-six per cent. of the wholly unemployed. according to the questionnaire, found it very difficult in getting work on personal grounds, in terms of age, health, and so on. A further 23 per cent. found it very difficult due to lack of opportunities.
I strongly urge the Government to provide a generous redundancy payment scheme which our miners deserve. It should be a generous scheme for the people to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude.
On Clauses 6 and 7, what some people call the hiving off Clauses. the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), another sympathetic Tory, told us not to worry,

that they were all right, and that they were harmless. We all know why this is being done. It is the pay off for the £2 million contribution to the election fund. This is the way to repay for the fact that they are now the Government. But the Government are doing this at a great disservice to our great nationalised industry.
I hope that we on this side of the House can convince our friends and comrades in the mining industry that they have a great future, that the country needs a strong, well-balanced and efficient coal mining industry, and that when we return to power we shall not let them down.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: We are faced with the somewhat distasteful situation that, in accepting the first part of the Bill, which goes some way towards alleviating the real social distress which exists in the older colliery areas, we must swallow the reprehensible Clauses 6 to 8, which were born some months ago in the days of rolling phrases such as "rolling back the frontiers of State enterprise", "lame ducks" and "bracing freedom". Some months and some economic disasters have passed since those phrases were hatched. They are the genesis of Clauses 6 to 8.
During our debates in Committee the situation of world energy supply was changing at a rate which highlighted the importance of maintaining a sound coal industry. We can speak of a world energy gap, although it might be more apt to regard an energy gap as a condition which is suffered by hon. Members who enduring excessive hours of work and getting too little rest.
There is a world energy gap which the oil sources cannot meet, which North Sea gas will go only a little way towards meeting, and which nuclear power, because of its internal problems, cannot hope to meet. The maintenance of the coal industry will be vital for many decades to come.
The Bill must be considered in the light of whether it makes any contribution towards the maintenance of a vital coal industry. Clause 7, which is concerned with hiving off and restricting or disposing of activities, reveals the contradiction in the thinking of hon. Members opposite about what is good for private


industry as opposed to what is good for public industry. Subsidies and diversification are part of our commercial life. If one sector of an industry becomes unprofitable, the loss can be evened out by new ventures and other sectors.
Hon. Members opposite argue that this is wrong in a nationalised industry and that the Board's managers must be free to play their part in developing the coal side of the Board's activities. However, hon. Members opposite do not take this view about Unilever, I.C.I. or any of the other industrial giants. Boasts are often made to the effect that the strength of these giants lies in the extent of their diversification.
Diversification enables the Board to provide a service and try to minimise any loss there may be on older fuel sources by taking advantage of additional opportunities and sources of new fuel which the Board's skills can contribute to discovering and developing. The Board brings to the partnerships into which it enters with private industry vitality, experience and business acumen of which the country can be justly proud and which should entitle the Board to more than the sneers which come its way from some hon. Members opposite.
Towards the end of this century other countries will be scrambling to get adequate shares of the sources of fuel. Then it will be supremely irrelevant to argue, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) did, that the whole question is to do with keeping the price of coal at a fixed ceiling to compete with oil. Our primary task is to maintain a healthy coal industry, so that at the end of the century we will have some source of energy and will not be blackmailed on the world markets into paying astronomical prices for scarce fuels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) spoke about the philosophy behind these Clauses being a desire to pay off political friends. While I do not necessarily follow my hon. Friend in this it would be interesting to speculate as to what the current rate of return is on capital invested in Conservative Party funds. If the exercise of the Government's powers under Clause 7 will be to rob the N.C.B. of its confidence in the future, demoralising the industry, making it less able to survive, then hon. Gentlemen in their

excessive preoccupation with the short-term theory, will be doing a great long-term disservice to the country. If as a result of the exercise of these powers, buyers are found, it would be the wish of hon. Members on this side to take back into public ownership at the earliest possible moment, those parts which have left it.
Great excitement was evinced by hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) whose boiling point is notoriously low when we said we would not pay compensation. What compensation was given to the nationalised airlines when they were deprived of £6 million worth of routes recently to service private enterprise? We did not hear frenzied mutters of confiscation then. If private buyers come along to pick the plums from public industry then they will have to learn, as little boys who take plums from other people's orchards learn, that they will end up with a gigantic stomach ache.

2.23 a.m.

Mr. Swain: Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) I was tempted to start at the Title and read right through the Bill, Clause by Clause. It is apparent from his speech that the hon. Member has not read the Bill. The hon. Member was on the Committee which studied the Bill and which sat on 13 occasions, the proceedings of which filled 736 columns of HANSARD. I cannot find any place where the hon. Member uttered a single word in those 736 columns. With respect, I would suggest that the hon. Member suffered from a fortnight's energy gap.

Mr. Biffen: While we are discussing our mutual deficiencies, might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks again at the proceedings, because he will find that I made a contribution, and, what is more, an effective one, because it was one which encouraged the Minister to change his mind. I contrast that with the endless contributions made by the hon. Gentleman which, as far as I can see, met with no success in getting the Minister to change his mind.

Mr. Swain: It must have been printed in invisible ink. The hon. Gentleman has had as much influence on the Coal Industry Bill Committee as the hon. Member for Worcestershire,


South (Sir G. Nabarro) would have at the Labour Party Conference.
I contend that the Bill has been presented to this House hypocritically—and I use the word "hypocritically" in the worst sense—by the Minister. The Minister and the Secretary of State knew when they presented the Bill that we were under an obligation on behalf of the unfortunate redundant members of the N.U.M. to accept Clauses 1 and 2—in other words, to accept four quarters of castor oil for the sake of one tiny sweet. There are defects in Clauses 1 and 2 which we tried to correct in Committee. We did not get assistance from the Minister or from any of his hon. Friends when we were trying to correct something that we thought was conceived in mistake.
We consider that the scaling down in Clause 2 is a mistake. We must look at the effect of the scaling down over a period of three years in direct relation to the economic effect that Clause 7 will have on the industry in the third year of implementation of the Bill since it is in the third year that the hiving off process will begin to take effect. In the first year the inquiries have to be set up and in the second year they have to be stated and the Minister must make up his mind what orders to lay before Parliament as to what sections of the industry would be most beneficial from his point of view to be hived off. It is in the third year of implementation of the Bill that the economic effects of hiving off will begin to bite.
The Coal Board will be faced with a loss of profits which it has made, having for many years borne the brunt of research and of prototype applications, having built up factories, extended works and so on. The loss of the money that will be hived off from the industry will have a serious effect in the third year, certainly if there is a slump in the economy of the Coal Board created by one of the imponderables which the Board as an extracting industry is always having to face.
These provisions will have the double-edged effect of there being only a one-third grant from Government to help in relation to the social consequences and also of the Board suffering the loss arising from the hiving off. Therefore,

Clauses 1 and 7 must be directly related. I would ask the Minister to try to reconcile the "double fracture" that will take place in the Coal Board's finances as a result of the relativity of the two Clauses. I hope and trust that we shall have answers on these problems.
My hon. Friends put down a number of Amendments in Committee, and we have tried to get Amendments accepted tonight. We got one Amendment accepted in Committee, but on Report it has been made insignificant by the Minister. He has completely changed it and made it far less significant than it would have been had he been democratic enough to accept the decision of the majority of the Committee, which included hon. Members from his own side, who spoke cogently on behalf of the Amendment so ably put forward by my hon. Friends. They spoke cogently and backed up their words by casting their votes in favour of democracy.
The Minister has fundamentally changed the Bill by his Amendment tonight in contradiction of the wishes of even his own hon. Friends in Committee. As my hon. Friends have suggested, a Government Amendment should be seriously considered in the other place to reverse this shameful change and restore the Bill to the shape in which it left the Committee, so that we can have parliamentary accountability and ensure the democratic rights of backbenchers. We know that it is asking a lot to get fair play from the Government.
At the commencement of his speech, the hon. Member for Oswestry painted the wings of the golden dove on his hon. Friend the Minister for Industry. I accused the Minister of being the father and mother, the saint of all saints, in connection with Clauses 6 to 8. This is his godchild. It is not the Secretary of State's godchild, I am certain. I do not think that the Secretary of State is intelligent enough to think about it. The Minister is intelligent and vicious enough in his political philosophy to think and act about it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Do not flatter him."] I am not flattering him. I said to him during his first fortnight in office that I had started writing his political obituary. I wish that I was finishing it off tonight, because it is high time that the Government saw the light of day.


I thought that the Government would realise the mistakes that were made by our Government in 1967; they made mistakes and admitted them. Subsequent events proved that they made mistakes, because their long-term forecasting was almost as inaccurate as the long-term forecasting of 1955, 1957, 1959, 1961 and 1963. So we did make mistakes.
I also accuse the Government of not presenting a Preamble to the Bill. This is becoming a habit—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member can draw attention only to what is in the Bill, and not to what it does not contain.

Mr. Swain: You are tempting me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to read every word in the Bill so that I shall not be out of order. Nobody can rule me out of order if I set to and read the Bill. My train does not go until five minutes past nine.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member, who is notoriously fair, will see the point of what I have said. We cannot discuss something which is not in the Bill.

Mr. Swain: I try to be very fair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in listening to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) I did not know whether he was talking about maternity benefit or coal. He was allowed to carry on, because I do not think that even the Chair, let alone myself, understood what he was talking about.
The hiving-off process has already started, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said, without an inquiry. No exhaustive inquiry has been conducted successfully to hive off the Board's first asset, which was acclaimed by the Minister as being the finest asset that the Board had ever had. The Government have hived off Robens to private industry without an inquiry. By the fact that they printed the Bill they hived the chairman off, and they have been successful in that. If they are as successful in hiving off the other assets of the Board, all I can say is that in 10 years' time there will be no coalmining industry.
Were it not for Clauses 1 and 2, the Chief Whip would be sitting there and the Smoke Room would be full of Tory Members, because we should be going

through the Division Lobbies on Third Reading. But the political cowardice of the Tory Party is proved when they are making up this Bill with two parts; one little pill with a bit of sugar, and then a quart of castor oil. The hon. Gentleman has hypocritically hidden behind that fact during the whole proceedings. Even during the Committee stage he was hiding behind it, like King Edward behind the virgin's skirts. I accuse the Government of political cowardice through all the stages. If they had not been political cowards they would have introduced the Bill which the Labour Party prepared and introduced before the General Election—a Bill which was constructive, and designed to remedy the mistakes of 1967 and bring back confidence into the mining industry, which it has lacked due to the mistakes of consecutive Governments from 1957 onwards. This Bill does nothing to restore confidence.
The hon. Member for Oswestry and other hon. Members have said that by our speeches we have been breeding a state of no confidence in the mining industry. But, with the exception of myself, every man in the street where I live is a miner and I know what they are saying and thinking. They have no confidence in this Bill or in the Government which introduced it. They said to me last weekend in no uncertain terms, "The sooner you have John Eden's head in the basket —assuming you are not spilling any blood in the process—the better off this country will be." I am saying this out of disrespect not for the hon. Gentleman, but for the whole party which he represents. He is the unfortunate victim who has to steer through a Bill which is a disgrace to democracy. I hope and trust that we get a Labour Government back as soon as possible, so as to introduce some confidence into this great industry of ours
At the south end of my constituency, in the town where my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) lives, 10 per cent. of the male population is unemployed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not in the Bill. The unemployment in the hon. Member's constituency is not there. He must keep to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Swain: It is more serious in Clay-cross than if it were in the Bill. I wish it were in the Bill. I should not be so


worried then. But this is the situation that we are facing as a result of what is in the Biil, and we cannot discuss what is in it without describing the effects which this Bill is having on the mining industry today. If we stuck strictly within the narrow confines of the Bill, then the Third Reading could have been over in 20 minutes. We cannot take these words, which are meaningless in themselves, without analysing and explaining them, in the same way as we shall have to explain to our miner's council next Monday in Chesterfield, and to the millers in the welfare clubs and pubs. Those are the people who worry me.
Above all, what is worrying me is the overall effect which this Bill is going to have on the industry and on the economy of the country in general. Its effect on the industry in general will be catastrophic. The borrowing powers have been extended and the profit-making powers have been contracted, so we are in a vice. If we need money we have to borrow it, whereas we had money in the bank, and prospective money in the bank over the next three years, to pay our bills.
The statement by the Under-Secretary about accountability has not yet been explained. Nobody in this House knows why the National Coal Board, assuming that it has to act under the direction of the Minister, should hive off its profit-making sections. Nobody knows under which Section of the Act of Parliament the Board will be inhibited from spending the money as it desires, whether it be on wages, fringe benefits, implementation of the miners' charter, which was promised in 1947, or on housing or anything else relating to the mining industry. Nobody knows why the Board is inhibited or, when the money is put into the bank, what will become of it or in what sphere it can be spent, because it is not explained in the Bill and the Minister has so far made no effort to give us a sensible and satisfactory explanation.
I wonder what the accountants to the Coal Board, the Board itself and the finance officer on the Board are thinking about the implementations of the Bill. I have an idea. But if I voice my idea, Sir Robert, you will no doubt suspend me for five days. I have already discussed this matter with certain members

of the Board, and the words which they used about the Bill and the hon. Gentleman who introduced it are nobody's business.
I do not hope and trust, because anybody who puts his trust or hope in this Government will want a little warm corner in the crematorium before long. The hon. Member for Oswestry talked about trust and his great faith in the Government. The hon. Gentleman should not be a sleeping partner throughout the Committee and Report stages of the Bill and then get up and make a fighting speech which, if he had made it in my street, would have sent all the kids to sleep. I commend the hon. Gentleman not only to glance at the Bill, but to read the implications contained within it.
If the hon. Member for Oswestry, or the Minister, knew the fears which the Bill has engendered in the minds of miners throughout the country, I am sure that he would change his mind. It is too late for the hon. Gentleman to change his mind now. It is too late for him to do anything about it, apart from making recommendations to the other place.
Let us hope—I will not say trust, because we could not trust this Government; if they told me that it was Friday, I should have to go outside and look at the calendar; that is the trust which I have in hon. Gentlemen opposite—that the Minister makes recommendations to the other place, because I assure him that the miners' Members in the other place—we have some at last, thank God —will put up a valiant effort to get the Bill changed there. The Bill will not have such a nice little homecoming, with the ear trumpets pressing against the back of the seats, when it gets to the other place; it will have a very rumbustious welcome indeed from my noble Friends.

Mr. Skinner: Would my hon. Friend—

Mr. John Mendelson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Swain.

Mr. Swain: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover wanted to intervene.

Mr. Skinner: He is never happy about my intervening; it is not the first time.

Mr. Swain: My hon. Friend is as emotional about the Bill as I am. He can be excused, as we all can on this side for our attitude to the Bill. If we intervene sometimes when we should not intervene and perhaps aggravate the Chair, we can be excused because we are trying to fight, sometimes emotionally, the dogma of the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Skinner: And some others.

Mr. Swain: And a lot more like him, who sit on that side, and many outside the House. So if our emotions appear sometimes to over-run us, there is no need for apologies: there is good reason for it.
I hope that when the Bill gets to the other place they will begin to put the pencil through every Clause we do not like. We warn the hon. Gentleman that there will be another day, and when that day dawns, his head will be in the basket. That dawn cannot come too soon so far as I am concerned.

2.47 a.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: This is my first opportunity to refer to the redundancy scheme. There are in my part of South Yorkshire, which is represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and myself, more than 2,000 people affected by this scheme and in the various stages of going through it—some have only just started it, others have been under it for a year or 18 months, others are nearing the end of it, and still others are out of the three-year period. Discussions with the men so vitally affected have made clear to us the very serious problem involved. It will therefore be part of the responsibility of the House to see to it that these men are not left high and dry.
I would stress this in view of the fact that the Minister is undertaking a review of the scheme and in view of its origin. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, we had this debate in 1967, going right through the night. The scheme was only partly the result of natural technological development. This industry has made great technological strides. I always resent it when people refer to it as a declining industry. It is not. It has made

more technological progress than almost any other industry in this country in recent years.
We knew then that one of the reasons for instituting the scheme was a mistaken fuel and energy policy. I make this point not because it is novel but because I would argue that it therefore imposes a special additional responsible upon the State and the Government. There was no question of men deciding to retire early because it pleased them to do so or of men wishing to go elsewhere to try their luck. It was a policy carried out with the enthusiastic support of Conservative hon. Members, who had earlier demanded an accelerated pit closure policy. It is clear, as we examine this matter in retrospect, that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot shuffle off their responsibility.
When these policies were decided, an additional, special responsibility was placed on the State for these men. This means that any Government—and I would be making exactly this point if we were in office now—must accept that they have a continuing responsibility towards these men, even after the three-year period has passed. We, therefore, have a special responsibility to remind the Government of this responsibility.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) knows that if I am critical of him I mean nothing personal. I am a constant listener to his contributions in general economic debates. He began with a personal point and tried to represent the Minister for Industry and the Under-Secretary as innocent babes in the wood—or, if not in the wood, then failing to find a way out of it. He claimed that they could not be held responsible for any of the political policies and inspirations of the Government in this sphere.
I happen to be one of the surviving Members of the Standing Committee who were given the task of nationalising the steel industry. The Minister for Industry and the Under-Secretary—the latter is not in the place; I do not complain because he was here for hours on end and will no doubt soon return—were prominent Members of the then Opposition in that Committee. I therefore had as one of my tasks, being part of a not silent majority, the duty to listen to the speeches of the then opposition hon. Members.


I listened with patience to the doctrinaire contributions of the Minister and Under-Secretary and I invite the hon. Member for Oswestry—who reads fast and will digest the OFFICIAL REPORT Of those 13 weeks' proceedings in no time—to examine those contributions. He will find that they were about the very point we have been debating today; namely, the activities of a nationalised industry in addition to the main activity it had when it was created. And it makes no difference whether one is dealing with steelmaking or coal production.
In those debates the Minister for Industry was the leader of thought on his side, with the exception of his right hon. Friend who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, if anybody can out-distance the Chancellor in his doctrinaire attacks and statements about the responsibilities of the publicly-owned steel industry it is the Minister for Industry. Frequently the Chancellor is imprecise in his attacks and, whether he is being doctrinaire or practical, he often misses his target. But not so the Minister for Industry, who is usually right on target, and the same goes for the Under-Secretary. Their doctrinaire comments on this subject cannot be surpassed.
They will recall how, in Committee on that earlier occasion, there was a controversy over a letter which the Minister was supposed to have written to Mr. Richard Winterbottom, who was then my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside, about the extended activities of a publicly-owned industry. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Oswestry reads the OFFICIAL REPORTS Of those proceedings he will have second thoughts about his comments tonight. There can be nobody more fundamentally and blindly committed to a policy of hamstringing and severely limiting the sensible activities of a publicly-owned industry than the Minister and the Under-Secretary. Whilst it cannot be for me to snoop into the details of what they say to each other when the Secretary of State and the Minister meet privately in their offices, it is clear that all the Clauses we are complaining about have the imprint of the Minister in every sentence. He bears full political responsibility for the provisions we are criticising.
What arguments did the hon. Gentleman then apply to all publicly-owned industries, and significantly never to privately-owned industries, and what are the arguments which so many of his hon. Friends are advancing today? It was that we must be careful to see that a publicly-owned industry does not suddenly start producing everything—and they meant "everything". That was the case we had to listen to in endless discussions on Amendments, when the most fantastic suggestions were made about what a publicly-owned industry might produce miles away from its original purposes. That was how the case was distorted and has been distorted ever since at every annual conference of the Conservative Party. Public feeling and ignorance have been whipped up against the publicly-owned industries to prepare the ground for such a Bill. Year after year the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been creating prejudice against the activities of publicly-owned industries, including the National Coal Board.
I am not talking about the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). We are not concerned with him; nobody takes him seriously at a Conservative Party conference or anywhere else. I am talking about the leaders of opinion in the Conservative Party who are responsible for this kind of Bill and this kind of attack, seeking severely to limit the activities of our coal industry.
If we may try to be serious and not propagandist for a moment, let us consider what is the real lesson of modern industry, of the oil and coal industries. Not so long ago as a member of a delegation from the Parliamentary Scientific Committee I accepted an invitation from Royal Dutch Shell to visit some of its installations in Holland. Other hon. Members who are present must have taken part in similar visits. It was profoundly interesting. What was the main preoccupation of our hosts? It was not to tell us that they are refining oil; that was only a limited part of the experience they put before us. The great magic term was" the petro-chemical industry ". They go on producing product after product after product somehow connected with their original product. They showed us the figures and percentages, which were very impressive.


I am not producing any new knowledge. We do not have to go to Holland to see this sort of thing. But I quote that as an example because Royal Dutch Shell is the parent company and in many ways is more of a leader in this matter than our own Shell Company. The senior influence is over there. They showed is what they did in Venezuela and what they do with the original product. They have an empire; they produce more and more things. In every lecture we were told that the decisive reason is, "We cannot hope to continue successfully to work as oil producers and refiners if we did not diversify our business activities."
But when the poor old British National Coal Board comes along and, in a much more modest way than the big oil companies, tries to secure its base by diversifying its activities, the Minister and his supporters regard that as a major crime. That is the reality of the background to these unnecessary and malicious Clauses.
Hiving off is not a laughing matter, although it is better to have a little humour in a debate than always to be grim and serious. What are the Government attacking? Here is a great national asset and an international situation which, according to the Government, is full of uncertainty. Every day there are reports of new claims being made by those interested in the oil supplies of Western Europe and this country. We know that a national fuel policy has not yet been worked out. That important body, the Select Committee on Science and Technology, has produced results which cast doubt on the claims about alternative sources of fuel.
This great national asset deserves to be strengthened. In this situation, it would have been sensible for the Minister soon after taking office to suggest to the Board that it should undertake further diversification to broaden and improve the base. But before he put his name on his Ministerial office, he started preparing this miserable doctrinal Bill.
It is against that background that we have to consider the more hopeful signs which have developed in the industry recently. Anybody who has had contact with those who run the industry, such as Yorkshire Members who recently met the chairman of the Yorkshire division

of the Board, knows that there is hope in the industry. We all have a duty to encourage that hope, and I know that that at any rate is common ground between us, as it has been on previous occasions. We argue ourselves apart, but there are also points at which we manage to argue ourselves closer together.
I cannot understand for the life of me, therefore, why the Minister should rush in with his doctrinal views and not appreciate the damage he causes. I can understand any Government on coming to office saying that there are certain things which must be done at once, political commitments, leaving aside the bigger things, but producing evidence for the back benchers and other supporters that one is rushing in to put things right. An example of that is Circular 70 issued by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It is a bad circular, but it is not a disaster, because making a school comprehensive or not is a longterm process.
But here we are talking about an immediate difficulty and what in some respects is the potentially dangerous fuel requirement situation. How can the Minister assume responsibility for rushing in and producing Clauses 6, 7 and 8 as almost the first thing he does?
I am convinced that the Government mean business, and I do not think that the Bill is a gimmick. If I thought it were a gimmick, I should not be in the least worried and disturbed. But, knowing the doctrinaire attachment of the Minister to the policy of weakening publicly-owned industries and hiving off the useful and technologically advanced profitable activities in which they are engaged, and knowing that the Government believe in private enterprise, I am convinced that they mean business.
But there is a logic in Government, and I ask the Minister to be impressed by what was said in the long Committee stage and today, and by people in the industry—and to stay his hand. There is a parallel argument developing over steel. Recently, at a meeting with the Chairman of the British Steel Corporatoon, Lord Melchett, I was impressed by his firm statement that a British steel industry which does not work at an advanced level of technology in special steels, where there may be a danger of


the special steels division being sold to private enterprise—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not spend too long on that point.

Mr. Mendelson: I was coming to the end of that passing reference, which I made to pin-point the need for a large modern industry in an advanced stage of technology to advance on all major fronts at the same time if it is to remain internationally competitive. Lord Melchett said that if we are to remain competitive with Japan and other steel producers we must advance on all these fronts, including the special steels division.
This applies equally to the coal industry. It must be possible in an age of petro-chemicals for the coal industry to advance on a number of fronts. I have no intention to be out of order or to prolong my speech, but these are appropriate subjects for an important Third Reading of this kind. I believe that the Government, alas, mean business, but I urge the Minister to be impressed by what is said by people in the industry who take a similar view to myself—a view which I have tried imperfectly, to put to the House tonight; I urge him to be sufficiently impressed to call a halt, to stay his hand, while there is an opportunity for reconsideration. I say that in all seriousness, because if he rushes ahead and pursues this disastrous and discouraging policy which is outlined as a serious possibility in these three Clauses, he will bear a very severe responsibility for the dangerous consequences which are bound to follow.

3.8 a.m.

Mr. Kinnock: Because of the lateness of the hour and because we have had an exhaustive debate throughout the day, I will keep my remarks extremely brief. but, as possibly the last back-bench Member to speak in the debate, I felt that I could not let the Third Reading pass without offering a fraternal tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and their team for the way in which they have waged a great campaign against this iniquitous Bill. It is a tribute to the knowledge of coalmining on this side of the House that we have had a combination of passion

and science which has enabled us, even if we lost the vote, to come out of the Bill with credit.
In the interests of brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will crave your indulgence and devote most of my remarks to making specific quotations from what is considered an authoritative article on the subject of the Bill. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), in an interesting contribution, turned his attention to the authorship of the Bill. He embarked on the greatest dispute about authentic authorship since the Shakespeare controversy two years ago.
The Secretary of State is tainted by his past relationship with British Petroleum, while the impeccable free enter-price pedigree of both the Minister for Industry and the Under-Secretary of State is well known to us. That does not prevent them from doing the job for which they were elected, and if they are perhaps over-zealous in putting their prejudices into action it is our business to disagree with them.
Far more important was the attention which the hon. Member for Oswestry drew to the fact that he wished to be realistic rather than nostalgic. I am far more interested in that, and in that context I will quote from an article by Richard Pryke in the Hill-Samuel Review in December entitled,
Are Nationalised Industries Becoming More Efficient?
Mr. Pryke thereby joined in a debate which has gone on for many years between the political parties and also within the Labour movement itself on exactly what the rôle of public enterprise is in the modern economy. Beginning with an historical review, Mr. Pryke, dealing with the pre-war period, said:
The coal industry … was technically backward. Between the wars the Continental producers increased their productivity much faster than Britain. Over the period 1925–36 output per man-shift underground increased by 130 per cent. in Holland, by 104 per cent. in the Ruhr, by 68 per cent. in Belgium, by 63 per cent. in France; but by only 34 per cent. in Britain.
Dealing with the post-war period, Mr. Pryke said:
Between 1948 and 1968 the nationalised industries' productivity increased by 3·4 per cent per annum, as against a rise of 2·8 per cent in manufacturing, which implies that the public enterprise rate was about 20 per cent higher"—


than the manufacturing rate. He also produced a table of labour productivity growth rates for public enterprise and manufacturing. I pick coal mining out of his list. It had a labour productivity of growth rate of 4·6 per cent. between 1958 and 1968. The public enterprise sector had a growth rate of 5·3 per cent. in that period while, in the private enterprises sector, chemicals, textiles, bricks and cement were the only manufacturing commodities which exceeded the growth rate in labour productivity.
The insidious idea that there is something weak about the very concept and activity of public enterprise is given the lie by articles such as that. It brings us to the other side of the picture—the hiving-off references in Clauses 6 and 7. I bring again to the notice of the House an article in The Economist which was referred to on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. It is worth repeating because it put in a realistic context exactly the treasure trove under consideration in this Bill. The Economist article, published on 28th November, said:
It was made clear this week that, when the bill gets through Parliament, Lord Robens will be directed to list all the non-mining activities the Government would like to put on the market. As chance would have it, these non-mining activities, which account for £131 million of the N.C.B.'s £840 million turnover are profitable. A total of £1l·1 million came in from them last year—despite the fact that one of the largest subsidiaries, brick-making, lost £340,000 because of the building slump.
Let us take those two articles together and think in realistic terms, as the hon. Member for Oswestry asked to do, forgetting about the nostalgia connected with the mining industry. My family have been connected with the industry and a mining community for the last 90 years, so it is difficult to forget the emotional tie one has with coal.
But let us be completely scientific and take on face value the idea expressed by the hon. Member for Oswestry, and notably assented to by the Minister, that the Conservative Party had no great sense of ideological commitment to the idea of dismantling parts of this nationalised industry. Pryke has proved, and no one has seriously contested the idea, that productivity and output per man shift have increased dramatically in all the nationalised industries and notably in

the coal industry throughout the post-war period. If it is only the profitable sectors of the Coal Board that the Government want to turn over to free enterprise, can one honestly argue that there is any reason for saying that the hon. Members opposite are not committing this act through a deep sense of ideological commitment?
It is not a debating point but a point which should be made abosluely clear to the people that there is no truth in the bland, urbane way in which hon. Members opposite try to present this Bill, and undoubtedly will try to present other pieces of doctrinaire legislation, by saying that it is necessary for the good of the economy.

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the Minister give an explanation of the collapse of Aberdare Holdings and his personal involvement, and what will happen to Wales as a result of this collapse? This matter is directly related to my hon. Friends's argument.

Mr. Kinnock: I suppose that I have a gentle streak. I have avoided mentioning the Minister's connection with the biggest single firm in my constituency, South Wales Switchgear and Aberdare Holdings, because its activities are not relevant to the conduct of our proceedings at this time in the morning. However, it will provide ground for fruitful discussion between the Minister and me on some future occasion.
This sector of the coal industry is obviously being hived off not because of inefficiency, lack of promise, unprofitability, bad management or lack of demand for its products, but because it is a source of plunder. Whatever the reasons for the adoption of this policy after the Conservative Party virtually ignored this stategy for at least 12 of the 13 years when it was last in government, its attitude to the coal industry and other nationalised industries arises mainly from the fact that it is becoming honest enough to manifest its basic and abiding hatred of the very idea of publicly-owned enterprise. It believes, as Galbraith has it, that publicly-owned assets are an incubus and that there is something virile and wonderful about private enterprise. The case is proved by a comparison of manpower statistics and of the contribution which public and


private enterprise make to our economy and to a decent standard of living that none but the most banal and barbarian ideologists could think that private enterprise had more to offer than public enterprise.
The Rolls-Royce fiasco—the tragedy of a great firm—should have proved once and for all that there is nothing wonderful or special about the way in which an enterprise is owned. What is important is the way in which it is run. No hon. Member opposite has adduced any significant or substantial reason, on the basis of the way in which the Coal Board or its subsidiaries are run, for saying that this should be a justification for hiving off. If the Government could prove bad management, there would perhaps be a case for trying alternative ownership. But that is not proved. What the Government offer is an excuse. But the Bill will serve a purpose. In so many ways over so many years the coal industry has proved to be the spearhead of progress, especially in our movement but on many other aspects of social change and development.
The response throughout the industry, from the management and the worker, from the worker in the subsidiary industries, and from the taxpayer when he sees what is being done to what is his industry, will be so outraged and there will be such dislocation as to discourage the Conservative Government from trying to apply their twisted logic to any other nationalised industry. It will have been a cheap lesson for the Tories to learn. If they take the experience of the response which I am sure will be given to them over their hiving off of the profitable sectors of the coal industry, I hope it will mean that the special steels division of the B.S.C. will be saved. I hope that it will mean that we can prevent the disruption and discontent which will take place throughout the nationalised industries. I know that when election time comes the lesson of outright Toryism will not be forgotten. I hope that people on our side will respond with a warmer shade of Socialism.

3.22 a.m.

Mr. Varley: Reference has been made to the famous 1967 coal industry debate which went all night. I remember speaking on that occasion at about this time

in the morning. I spoke for about 25 minutes. I do not intend to repeat that, and no doubt some of my hon. Friends will be grateful for that, as will be the Minister and the supporters of the Government.
As this is probably the last time that anyone will speak from this side of the House about the Bill, because we may not see it again as it may not be amended in the other place, I thank all my hon. Friends for taking part, especially those in the Committee, and for their hard work.
We have done a first rate job, at least in exposing the utter folly of the main parts of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has said, in the process we have done a fine political job for our party.

Mr. Evans: If the Government cannot run Aberdare Holdings they cannot run the coal industry.

Mr. Varley: We have won all the arguments but have lost all the votes largely because of the juggernaut of the Government's majority, ably shepherded in by the Whips—except on the one occasion when the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) supported us.
We are already seeing the effects of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) said. The first hiving-off was Lord Robens. We are led to believe that Lord Robens would have stayed with the Coal Board and accepted the further five-year term he was offered, but that after seeing the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industry he found that he could not continue. We all know what happened. I do not know what will happen in that respect. I should probably be out of order if I were to go into that.
Over and over again in the course of these proceedings it has been said that these are years of opportunity for the coal industry. I agree that in certain respects they are. But I am afraid that if certain parts of the Bill are activated, the morale in the industry, which is picking up and ought to be encouraged, will go down. This was amply demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis).

Mr. Evans: When my hon. Friend talks about morale picking up in mining areas, he should come to my area and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), where he would see mining morale being picked up from its bootlaces because there is no other job to go to and miners are being dragooned back into the mines.

Mr. Varley: There is something in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) mentioned this. One reason why the Board's recruiting campaign is having some success is what is happening in the development areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham speaks from managerial experience in the industry, which is unique on the Labour benches. He speaks with all the authority of that experience. I accept it from him that the Bill will damage the industry and damage management's morale.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) spoke about a traditional Right-wing area—in some quarters it would be described as a responsible area—which is seething about the provisions in the Bill and is in a militant mood.
We hope that in his discussions and in framing the new redundancy payments scheme the Minister will take into account the pleas we have made.
I have a great respect for the hon. Member for Oswestry and admire his stamina. He has been present throughout the 11½ hours of today's proceedings on the Bill, except for very short absences from the Chamber. He came to the defence of the Minister for Industry and the Under-Secretary and admonished me for suggesting that they are the authors of Clauses 6 to 8. I do not make accusations lightly. The evidence of events over the last few months leads me to believe that on this occasion I am not wrong.
The Labour Government's Coal Industry Bill was produced in April. It contained no hiving off proposals. The Minister for Industry—he was then in opposition—welcomed the Bill, said that it was a good Bill, and said that it was nothing less than the industry deserved. In July—after the General Election—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the

Opposition asked the Leader of the House when the Bill was to be introduced and he was assured that it would be introduced quickly. The reason why it was held up and did not receive its Second Reading until 3rd December was that the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary decided that they wanted to do something to the Labour Government's Bill. It is no good the hon. Member for Oswestry saying that it is the Secretary of State's cherished ideal. The right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Technology at that time. The provisions in the Bill to which we object are the child of the Minister of State and the Home Secretary. Between 1964 and 1970 those two hon. Gentlemen, when they were in opposition, used week after week to attack the nationalised industries.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South did a great service when in Committee he pointed out that way back in 1956 the Minister for Industry voted against his own Government, against a Coal Industry Bill introduced by Mr. Aubrey Jones, the then Minister of Power. The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the lion. Gentleman is going a little outside the Bill talking about those days.

Mr. Varley: I am sorry, but the point was raised by the hon. Member for Oswestry and I wanted to prove that my accusation was not lighthearted and that I had tried to do some research to demonstrate that the two Ministers are responsible for this.
This is a doctrinaire Measure and that is why we have found it necessary to debate it at great length. We have had something like 124 hours' debate on this Bill, and we think that it was worth while. We have demonstrated our objections. I wonder whether, after all this, the Minister for Industry thinks that it has been worth while to take away £113 million of the £800 million. Coal Board turnover. This Measure has been justifiably fought, and the Government will put the clock back in operating it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said that all industry, nationalised or privately-owned, should seek to diversify, and that is what the Board has done over the years. It has done it legally, and the so-called peripheral activities have been carried


out for the benefit of the nation. I give this warning: it may be that there are easy pickings for private enterprise but we on this side will watch this Measure, if and when it becomes an Act, to see how it is working. We shall be watching the way in which the profitable parts are picked off. At some time in the future it may well be that we shall want to take them back.

3.38 a.m.

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) lamented the fact that we only get a Coal Bill every three years or so. I hope that we will have many opportunities to debate the affairs of this industry. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) implied that this was a critical time for the industry. I tend to side with those of his hon. Friends who took a more optimistic view about the future of the industry. It is I think much brighter than it has been for a long time. I am certain that that will give encouragement and heart to all hon. Gentlemen.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) for a speech in which he emphasised the way in which recruitment is being stepped up at present. There is no doubt that demand for the product is high. Both the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said that this is a time of opportunity for the industry. I am sure that those who work in it instinctively understand that it is now up to them to grasp this opportunity.
It is not easy to tell what the market conditions for coal will be. There are many things happening, with the possibility of British membership of the E.E.C., technological changes taking place—not just advances in mining methods but new techniques for burning coal and new derivatives. These are some of the changes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry referred which will affect the industry. I was grateful for his comments and the quality of his contribution to this debate.
One of the things that are most needed in contemplating the likely environment in which the industry may find itself in the future is a degree of flexibility to ensure it can adapt to changing circum-

stances. The degree of flexibility is provided for in Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill. In the past it has been a comparatively easy matter to add to the public sector. I am not just thinking of political acts, but of the normal processes of commercial development. It is not so simple to make changes in the other direction.
It is idle to speculate on the way in which sections of the industry might have developed had it not been brought together by the 1946 Act, but I am certain what is desirable for the future is that we retain a degree of flexibility so that the industry can adapt to whatever situation may arise. That so far as possible should be able to take place removed from a political atmosphere and being judged primarily by commercial criteria.
This is a comprehensive Bill covering many facets of the coal industry. It provides for further Exchequer support to be given to the National Coal Board and to redundant workers. This is a deliberate investment of a not inconsiderable sum of public money to help alleviate hardship which may be associated with pit closure.
I have given the House undertakings about the way in which I will conduct the review to devise a new redundancy payments scheme which I hope will meet the conditions which are likely to affect the men who become eligible for benefits under the scheme in future. The Bill gives the Board wider power to borrow in foreign currency and to provide certain forms of overseas aid. It increases the permissible limit of the Board's deficit. I hope that the steady improvement in the Board's own trading position will make it unnecessary for these powers to be called on. It provides for a review of the Board's diversified activities and for powers to direct their disposal, or reorganisation in certain circumstances. Finally, it will lead to improvements in the form of the Board's accounts and in its general accountability to Parliament.
In these ways the Bill will lead to a reorganised and much strengthened industry which will still primarily owe its future to the skills of its labour force, but one which by its proper deployment in this country and by the proper organisation of its affairs on a commercial basis will, I am certain, be enabled to find its rightful place in the future.


I should like to end on that note of commercial optimism for the future of this industry which I genuinely believe is a reasonable one. I hope the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SCOTTISH LANDS TRIBUNAL (LEGAL AID)

3.44 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.
I should like to start by commending the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) for his tenacity and patience in waiting with me until this late hour to debate this Order. May I give my personal thanks to him for giving me his company on this occasion. I shall be very brief in moving the Regulations, but I do not minimise their importance.
As the House knows, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland begins its work next Monday, 1st March. The Tribunal was set up to carry out functions under the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act, 1970, and also, at the same time, to take over functions that were prescribed in the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949. Those functions have hitherto been discharged by independent arbiters. In these circumstances, it is clearly desirable that people should not be inhibited from applying to the Tribunal by their inability to afford legal representation.
In England, legal aid has been available for proceedings before the Lands Tribunal since 1st June last year. In the Regulations, we are carrying out the declared intention of the previous Government, for which I give them credit, to apply the same measures to Scotland as soon as the Scottish Lands Tribunal was established.
An important fact to which I would like to draw attention is that in Scotland as against England, the Tribunal has

additional functions concerning feudal land conditions and allocation of feu-duties. In the Scottish situation, therefore, it is all the more necessary that legal aid should be available to those who require it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made the Regulations. All I would add is that the conditions on which a person will be entitled to legal aid will be exactly the same as those applying to civil proceedings in the courts.
I apologise to the House for being brief, but I am sure that I will be forgiven for that. I shall be glad to answer any questions that may be put to me. I hope that the House will welcome this Measure, which is, perhaps, modest in some respects but contains an important extension to the scope of legal aid schemes.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I thank the Minister for his kind words, and for my part I commend his fortitude. We on this side welcome the Regulations, not least for the reason, hinted at by the Minister, that they implement a decision taken in principle by the Labour Government. Although the Lands Tribunal for Scotland will come into existence or be born on 1st March. it was conceived a considerable time ago —I think, in 1949—so we have to welcome a 21-year gestation.
I hope that the Government will not stop at this but will sympathetically consider the extension of legal aid facilities to other realms. I think in particular of a realm which is not far removed—the ordinary valuation appeal courts. Obviously, the ordinary citizen is there very much at a disadvantage compared with his opponent, the rating authority, and he is faced with a maze of highly technical, intricate and artificial law. I always feel that in those cases the ordinary litigant is very much at the mercy of the assessor.
The stock reply which Governments, of either party, make when faced with requests for extension of legal aid facilities is that they are sympathetic and will reconsider the position when the economic situation permits. Of course it never quite permits of an extension. I stress and suggest, however, that the quality of mercy should not be strained and that justice in particular should be


done, even when the purse strings are a bit tight. It is then even more important to do it.
Until, however, the Government can undertake a comprehensive review of legal aid—which, I hope, they will carry out in the not too distant future—in the interests of economy as well as of justice, we can only welcome what we have got.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 th February, be approved.

EAST GRIMSTEAD CHALK PIT INQUIRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. More.)

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: A report has been published this month by the Stationery Office, which reveals that Sir Matthew Stevenson, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and Sir Edmund Compton, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, have both been called in and examined by a Select Committee of this House on an issue which affects my constituency. I should like to thank Members of that Committee for giving up their time as they did. These two distinguished public servants, we now learn, were questioned by Members representing all three political parties on the circumstances in which Britain's first secret planning inquiry came to be held. The activities of Select Committees are, of course, confidential until published, so that it is only now that we learn of this examination.
Both witnesses have reached the end of long and distinguished public careers. If the House considers that they have misjudged this particular case, I would say in their defence that they do no more than sail in the same boat with my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. But clearly it is a very leaky craft. The voyage began four years ago with a clumsy mistake

by the previous Administration. And since then it has been a long and uncomfortable voyage, patching and improvising in an attempt to keep out the water. After studying this evidence with a clear knowledge of the case, anyone will realise that the longer public investigation is postponed, the greater will be the catastrophe—greater because the additional question will need to be answered, why investigation was so long delayed.
On the first page of the report, Sir Edmund is asked:
Did you question the inquiry procedure rules as applied to this case?
And he answered:
No. I satisfied myself that the Ministry in their turn had satisfied themselves that it was legal. I say that in the third paragraph of my report.
Let us be clear. An unprecedented action by Government had been referred by me to the Parliamentary Commissioner for investigation. His rôle is to scrutinise and to pass independent judgment on the conduct of Departments of State. The House might think in this case that the Commissioner would do well at the outset to satisfy himself that this unprecedented action by Government was legal. He did not do so. Sir Edmund continues his reply to this same question:
Given the decision to hold this part of the Inquiry in camera, which, as I have said, I thought was reasonable, it did not occur to me that there was a change in the procedure which would have improved the position of the complainants.
It did not occur to Sir Edmund. But it did occur to the Council on Tribunals. They realised that safeguards were lacking, and they realised that procedural rules had been inadequate.
The Council recognise",
wrote their Secretary,
that a procedural point of considerable general importance has been raised.
Not that the Council was very robust when I referred matters to them. When Mr. R. A. Butler, as he then was, introduced the Bill in this place in 1958, setting up the Council on Tribunals, he referred to the view held by layman and lawyer alike, that the rôle of tribunals in the life of the community had become so powerful that,
some continuous supervision is essential if the confidence of the public is to be inspired and the citizen assured that they carry out


their duties in accordance with the principles of fairness, openness and impartiality.
Not one of those three principles was present at Salisbury. Yet the Council on Tribunals hesitated. Why, I do not know. When the moment came, the bark of this watchdog of our liberties was curiously muted. Fortunately, at least, it pronounced that rules of procedure for inquiries needed a fresh look.
On the second page of the report, Sir Edmund's fellow witness, Sir Matthew, is asked about these same rules:
Was it the Ministry's decision that this was a matter for the Inspector, or is this part of the rules or invariable practice?
Sir Matthew replies:
I cannot speak about practice of a thing which up to that point was unique. As to the details of the rules, I am not really terribly well equipped to answer.
But Sir Matthew is not alone in not being
terribly well equipped to answer.
The House will remember that Lord Kennet, Parliamentary Secretary of Sir Matthew's own Department, was asked in another place,
under which section of which Act these proceedings were authorised.
"I am sorry", Lord Kennet replied,
but I cannot quote chapter and clause"[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 13th October, 1969; Vol. 304, c. 1207–8.]
It is difficult to be well equipped if the equipment does not exist. It was on that occasion, I remember, that Lord Brooke of Cumnor, no less, made so clear that
there must be something wrong with the procedure.
The Select Committee asked Sir Matthew:
Should not the public have been warned about the prospect of in camera proceedings?
"I am not aware", Sir Matthew replies,
and indeed the Inspector so reports, that people were in any doubt … that this point was going to be raised.
Sir Matthew was not aware. Sir Edmund was not aware. But Wiltshire was aware.
How the Inspector could say that I do not know",
a farmer wrote to me,
because the first we knew about it was when the appellants asked to go into camera and the Inspector agreed; we were so flabber-

gasted that we did not protest as vehemently as we should have done if we had had this prior information.
What else does Sir Matthew say on page 2 of the report? He says:
the conductor of an inquiry has pretty certainly got to have this power of decision as to whether or not there should be in camera proceedings".
The House may consider this an interesting observation. Certainly it is not a view which was shared by Lord Kilmuir who, as Lord Chancellor in 1961, spoke in another place about ironstone working.
…it must be for the applicants",
he said,
to weigh the risk of disclosing information to their competitors against the advantage to be gained by its disclosure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,House of Lords, 13th April, 1961; Vol. 230, c. 426.]
There was no thought in the Lord Chancellor's mind of proceedings being allowed in camera.
Moreover, although Sir Matthew, after the Salisbury episode and when subjected to cross questioning, considers that an inspector
has pretty certainly got to have this power",
in all the years of planning—and planing legislation has existed since the beginning of the century—we managed very well without this power, until one fine day this unique precedent happened at Salisbury.
Later in the evidence of Sir Matthew is asked:
So the Ministry who were responsible for hearing the appeal were also taking responsibility for testing the technical evidence?
In the course of his reply, he said two things. The first was that this was a totally independent examination. Yet the House will recall that the examination was carried out under the auspices of the Government chemist. The Government were judge and jury and the sentence was imposed. In the words of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England:
The beauty of this lovely stretch of rolling countryside will be largely destroyed.
The second thing which Sir Matthew said in reply was:
The Minister of Housing has no axe to grind as to whether this appeal will be allowed or not.


Yet the House will recall that it was another Parliamentary Secretary of Sir Matthew's own Department, the late Arthur Skeffington, whose death we mourn this week, who told the House:
…my technical advisers and trade advisers recommended that in the public interest it should succeed …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 2339.]
On the same page of the Report, Sir Matthew is asked whether a local solicitor present at the in camera hearing could be considered properly qualified to evaluate technical evidence. He replied:
Well, of course, here the parties did in fact agree that the technical evidence should be sifted by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Yes, the parties did agree: there was no alternative. The solicitor and the clerk to the district council sat through a highly technical secret discourse. They understood not a word, their presence was meaningless, and when it was over they could not go out into the street and consult a specialist who might understand or even question what had been said. They could not speak of these things to anyone, least of all their Member of Parliament, nor can they today.
When it was suggested that the Government check the claims which had been made, the only choice open to them was Hobson's choice. Then, after the in camera proceedings and before the Minister made his decision, evidence became available to the world and the general secret emerged from secrecy. There were many closely printed pages. The House might think that the Minister who should have paused to re-open the inquiry so that this fresh evidence might be cross-examined in public, but he did not pause; he pressed ahead with his decision. How can this be explained?
The evidence which came to light was incomplete. Even when it did become known, says Sir Matthew in this Report,
.. there was a residual secret element.
Yes, there were many closely printed pages and highly technical they were. Sir Edmund Compton, classical scholar, pored over the formulae and the chemistry and found that something was missing. "Some" fresh evidence would not have justified reopening the inquiry; it had to be total new evidence. Even when it had become known, Sir Matthew said, there was a residual secret element.
In the Report, Sir Matthew is asked whether there were further applications on hand. He replied:
I do not think that we have further applications to work chalk … These are applications to deal with what is being won from the place about which the original inquiry was.
The House may ask the significance of this careful description. My constituents have always believed that, if a Minister bases a planning decision on in camera evidence, any decision thereafter concerning an extension of that permitted activity can be taken by the Minister and by the Minister alone. The Minister has to live with his secrets, and decide matters in the light of those secrets.
Thus, a giant excavating company is admitted to Wiltshire behind this screen of secrecy. There is not one elected member of a local authority in the county today, still less the Member of Parliament, who knows why the company is there. A foot is allowed in the door. A couple of years pass and the company wishes to extend its activities. The door must be opened wider. A processing plant and rail sidings are needed; a further £850,000 is to be spent.
Having outraged local opinion by the first inquiry, the Minister must somehow circumvent a repetition at the second inquiry. A distinction must, therefore, be drawn. To reveal the properties of what is quarried must remain a secret, but to process what is quarried is quite separate and different.
Public participation may be resumed, although questions must not be too pointed. The Minister considered it reasonable in these circumstances, having denied local planners the vital information at the first inquiry, to turn again to those local planners and expect them, still in the dark, to participate in weighing the merits of extending such activities. This explains why Sir Matthew differentiates and says:
These are applications to deal with what is being won from the place about which the original inquiry was".
Sure enough, six weeks after Sir Matthew had spoken, the second inquiry took place, and a Ministerial decision is awaited. It took place in broad daylight and the charade of this second


inquiry was more subtle, but no less apparent, to Wiltshire than that of the first. This second inquiry added insult to injury.
I would like to have dealt with the report in greater detail and to have spoken of the valiant support given by the National Trust, I would also like to have spoken of the meeting at the Ministry before the inquiry, of the exclusion of the only qualified witness, of the former Prime Minister's letter, which he later had occasion to revise, and of the failure by the Minister at that time to understand two clear letters which I had sent to him. But there will be time enough for these things later.
Meanwhile, we know that more than 200 alternative sites were explored before our valley was taken—though the Minister will not divulge to us the location of one of those sites. However, in this darkness we have enough light to understand what has happened. In 1967 the Government blundered into trouble, faulty legal advice was tendered, they were naïve enough to accept it and they never looked to the consequences.
They alerted their inspector that he was likely to preside over the first secret planning inquiry in history, thus loading the dice against my constituents before play began. When the inquiry was over, the Minister of the day found himself on a deteriorating wicket and had to stand truth on its head.
He adopted the stance that anybody who had been brought up to believe that a public inquiry meant an inquiry held in public needed his head examined, that inspectors had always had the power to hold planning inquiries in camera, that warning could never be given of in camera proceedings—because their adoption rested at impulse with the inspector on the spot—that Members of Parliament could never travel to a planning inquiry in their constituencies with assurance of being admitted on arrival and that highly qualified, highly paid expert witnesses could never be summoned to a public inquiry without risk of a wasted journey. This was the shabby fiction which the present Minister inherited. That was the ludicrous defensive myth which the present Minister was unwise enough to adopt. I did all that can be done to stress the danger.

On his first day in office I wrote an official letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saying:
I am profoundly anxious that the new Administration should weight this issue carefully before continuing down the slippery slope. Today the opportunity exists for a fresh look at the problem. If the opportunity is not taken there can only be regret further along the road".
The opportunity was not taken. My right hon. Friend was confident that he understood things better.
Today, because two years ago I took this issue to the Council on Tribunals, it lies on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. This gives my constituents new hope of justice. There is no one by whom they would rather see the matter considered, no one more qualified to do it. The House will appreciate that the Lord Chancellor is concerned only with the principle. He has neither power nor responsibility to intervene in Wiltshire. It is not his task to order a public investigation. This falls to the Secretary of State. What then will the Lord Chancellor do? He will pronounce one way or the other. My assessment is that new rules of procedure, sufficient to safeguard fairness and justice, are likely to be so complex as to be unworkable in practice. Two years of study have so far failed to produce a satisfactory code. However, if the Lord Chancellor in his great wisdom recommends new safeguards, which were not present in the Wiltshire case, it follows that what happened in Wiltshire should never have taken place. Alternatively if he, like his predecessor, recommends that secret planning inquiries should not be held, the conclusion is the same—what happened in Wiltshire should never have taken place. In either event, the protests of my constituents are vindicated.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development for attending this debate at this hour. I presumed to call at his office at the Ministry by appointment before the debate. I have left him only a few brief minutes, and he knew that this would be so. But I think that a few minutes will suffice. I have explained to him that my constituents are concerned with only one point. Has the Secretary of State now


decided to order a full public investigation, or does he choose to leave it yet a little longer?

4.8 a.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) has been lucky in having the subject of the East Grimstead chalk pit inquiry debated in the House on no fewer than four occasions. I think that this is the fifth occasion. After coming up bingo so many times before, he need not have hogged so many minutes out of the 30 of an Adjournment debate, leaving me so few in which to reply.
My hon. Friend seems to have gone beyond the bounds of determination and into the realms of obstinacy in pursuing this subject not only in the House but before the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Lord Chancellor and the Council on Tribunals. Now he mounts an attack on two civil servants. His attack on Sir Matthew Stevenson and Sir Edmund Compton is wholly unwarranted and wholly unjustified. In the evidence Sir Matthew gave before the Select Committee he dealt faithfully with the events relating to the hearing of part of a planning inquiry in camera, which my hon. Friend emotively called Britain's first secret inquiry. My hon. Friend has quoted evidence given by Sir Matthew and Sir Edmund before the Select Committee in scathing tones, but one cannot alter evidence by the tones in which one quotes it. Those tones were quite inappropriate to the very proper contents of the evidence given by those two eminent gentlemen before the Select Committee.
I say quite firmly that there was no faulty legal advice given in this case. Judges, from lay justices of the peace to Lords Justices of Appeal, are familiar with requests for evidence to be given in camera. Judges use their discretion as to when to accede to such a request. But it has for long been established in the courts that a court may sit in camera when the subject matter of the case would otherwise be destroyed; for example, by the disclosure of a secret process or secret document, and there are innumerable legal cases and precedents to establish that right in the courts.
The court may so decide to sit in camera against the wishes of any of the parties to the proceedings. Inspectors hearing planning appeals are acting in a judicial capacity, albeit in a quasi-judicial capacity, and the procedure at inquiries is such as the inspector shall in his own discretion determine, and that is entirely in accordance with the rules and regulations for holding planning inquiries.
If he determines for good cause that part of the hearing shall be in camera, he is acting perfectly properly in doing so. Surely it is for good cause if he is following the practice of the courts relating to the hearing of cases concerning secret processes.
My hon. Friend seeks a further public investigation, as he has called it, but this seems an incredible request at this stage. After two planning inquiries, five debates in the House, an inquiry by the Ombudsman, who found that there was no ground for complaint, an examination by the Council on Tribunals, evidence before a Select Committee of the House—I am tempted to complete that list by saying "and a partridge in a pear tree"—my hon. Friend asks for a further public investigation. This matter has been investigated ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
If my hon. Friend hopes to obtain by such a public investigation a recommendation that no part of a planning inquiry shall ever be held in camera, I can tell him now that I would not accept such a recommendation. I have no intention of allowing planning procedures to destroy secret chemical processes which may be important national assets. Those who seek to develop those processes should not be prevented from doing so by planning procedures and by being unable to explain the reason why they are making those planning applications to the inspector who is hearing them, unable because they cannot disclose in public the secret process without destroying it. That was the position in this case.
I think that our procedures in planning inquiries should maintain the position that if proceeding in camera will preserve an asset of that sort, the inspector must be able to use his discretion in judging whether the claim to a private hearing is genuine.


I want to make it perfectly clear that when we are talking about a hearing in camera, we are speaking of a hearing at which the parties are represented, as they were in this case. All the parties concerned were represented at that private hearing. It was not heard in the absence of any of the parties. It—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a quarter past Four o'clock a.m.